I think you're being sarcastic and deceitful, but it's still a valid question.
While I'm sarcastic to strawman and emotive arguments, I'm rarely deceitful. I may question in favor positions I don't fully believe myself, but that's not deceitful. That's just philosophical examination. Kind of surprised that you would think I'm not operating from a place of honesty, really.
It's the way in which the racialists, both left and right, behave to get their point across, mostly by 'hiding their power-level' from normies instead of being honest about their actual positions.
Anti-whiteness has become so institutionally acceptable on the Left at this point that it's probably the thing I'm going to get fired for fighting against it IRL.
First of all, hide your power level. Getting fired serves no purpose, unless you're simply ready for a change of employment. You aren't going to change things on an individual level. Focus on the zeitgeist. Second, you acknowledge institutionally acceptable anti-whiteness. But it's further than that. It's anti-white indoctrination. You don't unwind indoctrination by constantly triggering cognitive dissonance. You ease people into ideas that are uncomfortable, but not painful. Anyone that can't say kike or nigger or chink without discomfort isn't really free in their thoughts. That's why you notice and point, and don't simply start dumping a fact overload that will be summarily rejected. The rejection has nothing to do with the content of the message, but by the conditioning of the subject.
So despite what you say, noticing or 13/50 is precisely what you believe to be grooming. I prefer the term deprogramming, but that's semantics. The goal is the same. Creating receptiveness to ideas that would normally trigger cognitive dissonance.
racist cops, racist cops, racist cops. White people hate you. White people want to kill you. Cops will shoot you. Cops don't shoot white people. Racist cops. That's the only reason they'd pull you over. Racist cops. That's why you're in trouble. They'd let a white person go. Racist cops
While you're correct that this triggers a lot of the discord we're seeing, there are easily obtained facts that show exactly why blacks are disproportionately killed in police encounters. Namely, they're responsible for 44% of attacks on cops, which is what, in turn, leads to death of offenders.
Early Life. Early Life. Early Life. Check his name. Check her name. Look again. Find it. Find it. Find it. Find the Jew. Find the Jew. Every time. Every time. Every time. Look again. Every time. Early Life. Every time. Check Nose. Check Name.
Here it gets a little tricky. We're not dealing with recorded criminality, but instead promotion of degeneracy and undue influence over way too many people. Because there's no clear database of:
Journalism overall
Distribution by ethnicity
Articles promoting degeneracy
It gets tough to make a clear argument. You can show massive disproportions in ownership and leadership within mainstream news or financial or legal organizations, but laying that out doesn't deprogram anyone. They'll still flinch cognitively when they become suspicious of the Jew. At least initially. That's why you get people to question, rather than say stupid shit like "it's all the Jews fault" (which isn't true, btw).
Now, we can look at other areas of influence that do have recorded information on influence.
The influence is there and disproportionate for anyone willing to see it.
That's why you see so much Early Life. Your community is fighting against degeneracy in our culture, and it has a disproportionate source. I just wish we had a journalism database that couldn't be dismissed as easily as the FBI uniform crime stats.
It's not about conditioning people, DoM. It's about deconditioning people so they can stand on their own with free thought. If you can say nigger without feeling anything, and not feel a need to say nigger, you're in a good place.
Kind of surprised that you would think I'm not operating from a place of honesty, really.
It seemed like a ridiculous question. Why not just ban an entire topic of discussion while I make an attempt to preserve our universally threatened rights to speak freely? Should be obvious.
First of all, hide your power level. Getting fired serves no purpose, unless you're simply ready for a change of employment. You aren't going to change things on an individual level.
Welcome to the Culture War. You should always be prepared to be fired. In fact, you should always go before you get fired. You should make the savings to prepare for that.
I don't agree that you can't change things on an individual level. In fact, individual actions are the only way you can change anything at all. Hell, what do you think I've done to KiA2 besides individual actions? Each institution must be built by hand, not abstraction.
So despite what you say, noticing or 13/50 is precisely what you believe to be grooming. I prefer the term deprogramming, but that's semantics. The goal is the same. Creating receptiveness to ideas that would normally trigger cognitive dissonance.
That's my point, I don't think it is because the end result is different. You deprogram people with conditioning. You can only deprogram people through experience to break any previous conditioning, and most importantly, it has to be an act of independent thought. Conditioned responses to trigger words is the opposite of that, and it's done for an ideological purpose.
All that you'd be doing is trading one ideological possession for another.
While you're correct that this triggers a lot of the discord we're seeing, there are easily obtained facts that show exactly why blacks are disproportionately killed in police encounters. Namely, they're responsible for 44% of attacks on cops, which is what, in turn, leads to death of offenders.
Because Disparity is not Discrimination. There's an underlying factor of behavior, culture, education, competence, family, tradition, and a thousand other things related to that. White cops and White judges don't mean Whites are using power to dominate blacks. The Racial Theory of History isn't valid.
The influence is there and disproportionate for anyone willing to see it.
Disparity is not Discrimination.
Your community is fighting against degeneracy in our culture, and it has a disproportionate source.
I am but a humble janny. "The community" is an abstraction formed by it's changing individual members. What it chooses to fight for, is what they themselves chose to fight for.
It seemed like a ridiculous question. Why not just ban an entire topic of discussion while I make an attempt to preserve our universally threatened rights to speak freely? Should be obvious.
I'm just saying, I doubt "coalburner" or even "niggerlover" would have triggered the removal as quickly as "kikesucker". You seem to have a kneejerk fear and loathing of this particular brand of racism; not without good reason, because it truly is one of the greatest sins a person can commit with speech in this era. For that reason, it would seem as valid to remove such a comment as a direct slur at a user. You're drawing a line, so there's already a compromise. Why not move the line a little to the left to save yourself this particular headache?
I know that you understand that this is precisely how leftism works. Slow and insidious compromises to your ideals. But you also realize you've already compromised, likely in the name of quality discussion, I'm sure. It was a good faith question, I assure you. You're the one that gets to choose where that line is, and I'm just wondering why you fight something that you don't seem to view as conducive to quality discussion, when it's entirely at your discretion.
I don't agree that you can't change things on an individual level. In fact, individual actions are the only way you can change anything at all. Hell, what do you think I've done to KiA2 besides individual actions? Each institution must be built by hand, not abstraction.
I am but a humble janny. "The community" is an abstraction formed by it's changing individual members. What it chooses to fight for, is what they themselves chose to fight for.
These two statements together are more what I meant. It's the zeitgeist. Your individual actions don't mean much unless they're in concert with others. If your firing influences those around you, or if you can get others to take a stand with you, then there's meaning to it. If your a minor individual annoyance that is quickly forgotten, then it probably only has much meaning to you (which, of course, still has value). Your actions, along with the individuals in the community, help shape the coming zeitgeist. If your firing would have no impact on the greater abstract, it would seem ill advised. The institution is built by hand, but it only becomes an institution within the abstract. This is also, incidentally, the exact foundation that modern racism is founded on; individual actions that build on the abstract.
I appreciate your view on being prepared for it, though. Cancel culture makes it a necessity as much as impending recession.
That's my point, I don't think it is because the end result is different. You deprogram people with conditioning. You can only deprogram people through experience to break any previous conditioning, and most importantly, it has to be an act of independent thought. Conditioned responses to trigger words is the opposite of that, and it's done for an ideological purpose.
You have to condition people to have an independent thought that breaks their programming. That's why people point out ((())). Eventually, through exposure, people begin to look into it for themselves. That's why you say 13/50. So people become receptive to the facts shown on FBI table 43. Some people legitimately believe only black crimes are reported to explain away that information if you don't bring them to a place where they can notice things they're conditioned to not notice.
This is why /pol/ memes are effective. They're succinct and make people question. That initial act of questioning things that you were taught to not question is "the red pill". What that means isn't ideologically rigid, because it's an individual act of self discovery.
Because Disparity is not Discrimination. There's an underlying factor of behavior, culture, education, competence, family, tradition, and a thousand other things related to that. White cops and White judges don't mean Whites are using power to dominate blacks. The Racial Theory of History isn't valid.
I may not be reading you right here, but this isn't an argument of discriminatory outcome. It's an argument of behavior, an underlying factor. Everything I've said
has been about observation of behavior, not of outcome. If you meant something else, I apologize, but you seem to be arguing that "equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome", which isn't my point at all. I'm in complete agreement with that statement.
Now, there is certainly an inherent correlation between behavior and outcome. I wouldn't use white in these analogies, because, at least in the US, whites are a majority, and proportions are amplified without and understanding of distribution (on a side note, the anti-AP style guide of capitalizing the W is a nice touch). When you deal with 2% or 13%, it helps contextualize why there's a disproportion. Saying whites are responsible for 64% of anti-social behavior sounds a lot more powerful without the context of whites being 64% of the studied group. Saying whites are responsible for 50% of articles promoting societal degeneracy works the same way (which I can't prove offhand, and I really wish we had a database so I could).
I don't condemn Jewish wealth. I don't condemn Jewish participation in journalism. I condemn their behavior in both how they use, and how they obtain that wealth and influence, disproportionately. And yes, Jews aren't a monolith. There are poor Jews, to be sure. There are wonderful Jews. There are honest Jews. The same applies to blacks, or any other "group". That's not the argument. It's the abstract that matters on the societal level. Anecdotes are great for individual interaction, but only a miniscule data point on demographic observation.
Also, I don't know what the Racial Theory of History is. Is that a tangible thing (CRT?), or is it an allusion to a limited influence of genetic factors on behavior, culture, tradition, competence, etc. on how things have turned out along racial lines?
While I'm sarcastic to strawman and emotive arguments, I'm rarely deceitful. I may question in favor positions I don't fully believe myself, but that's not deceitful. That's just philosophical examination. Kind of surprised that you would think I'm not operating from a place of honesty, really.
First of all, hide your power level. Getting fired serves no purpose, unless you're simply ready for a change of employment. You aren't going to change things on an individual level. Focus on the zeitgeist. Second, you acknowledge institutionally acceptable anti-whiteness. But it's further than that. It's anti-white indoctrination. You don't unwind indoctrination by constantly triggering cognitive dissonance. You ease people into ideas that are uncomfortable, but not painful. Anyone that can't say kike or nigger or chink without discomfort isn't really free in their thoughts. That's why you notice and point, and don't simply start dumping a fact overload that will be summarily rejected. The rejection has nothing to do with the content of the message, but by the conditioning of the subject.
So despite what you say, noticing or 13/50 is precisely what you believe to be grooming. I prefer the term deprogramming, but that's semantics. The goal is the same. Creating receptiveness to ideas that would normally trigger cognitive dissonance.
While you're correct that this triggers a lot of the discord we're seeing, there are easily obtained facts that show exactly why blacks are disproportionately killed in police encounters. Namely, they're responsible for 44% of attacks on cops, which is what, in turn, leads to death of offenders.
Here it gets a little tricky. We're not dealing with recorded criminality, but instead promotion of degeneracy and undue influence over way too many people. Because there's no clear database of:
Now, we can look at other areas of influence that do have recorded information on influence.
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/biggest-donors
Top 10 individual contributions:
The influence is there and disproportionate for anyone willing to see it.
That's why you see so much Early Life. Your community is fighting against degeneracy in our culture, and it has a disproportionate source. I just wish we had a journalism database that couldn't be dismissed as easily as the FBI uniform crime stats.
It's not about conditioning people, DoM. It's about deconditioning people so they can stand on their own with free thought. If you can say nigger without feeling anything, and not feel a need to say nigger, you're in a good place.
It seemed like a ridiculous question. Why not just ban an entire topic of discussion while I make an attempt to preserve our universally threatened rights to speak freely? Should be obvious.
Welcome to the Culture War. You should always be prepared to be fired. In fact, you should always go before you get fired. You should make the savings to prepare for that.
I don't agree that you can't change things on an individual level. In fact, individual actions are the only way you can change anything at all. Hell, what do you think I've done to KiA2 besides individual actions? Each institution must be built by hand, not abstraction.
That's my point, I don't think it is because the end result is different. You deprogram people with conditioning. You can only deprogram people through experience to break any previous conditioning, and most importantly, it has to be an act of independent thought. Conditioned responses to trigger words is the opposite of that, and it's done for an ideological purpose.
All that you'd be doing is trading one ideological possession for another.
Because Disparity is not Discrimination. There's an underlying factor of behavior, culture, education, competence, family, tradition, and a thousand other things related to that. White cops and White judges don't mean Whites are using power to dominate blacks. The Racial Theory of History isn't valid.
Disparity is not Discrimination.
I am but a humble janny. "The community" is an abstraction formed by it's changing individual members. What it chooses to fight for, is what they themselves chose to fight for.
I'm just saying, I doubt "coalburner" or even "niggerlover" would have triggered the removal as quickly as "kikesucker". You seem to have a kneejerk fear and loathing of this particular brand of racism; not without good reason, because it truly is one of the greatest sins a person can commit with speech in this era. For that reason, it would seem as valid to remove such a comment as a direct slur at a user. You're drawing a line, so there's already a compromise. Why not move the line a little to the left to save yourself this particular headache?
I know that you understand that this is precisely how leftism works. Slow and insidious compromises to your ideals. But you also realize you've already compromised, likely in the name of quality discussion, I'm sure. It was a good faith question, I assure you. You're the one that gets to choose where that line is, and I'm just wondering why you fight something that you don't seem to view as conducive to quality discussion, when it's entirely at your discretion.
These two statements together are more what I meant. It's the zeitgeist. Your individual actions don't mean much unless they're in concert with others. If your firing influences those around you, or if you can get others to take a stand with you, then there's meaning to it. If your a minor individual annoyance that is quickly forgotten, then it probably only has much meaning to you (which, of course, still has value). Your actions, along with the individuals in the community, help shape the coming zeitgeist. If your firing would have no impact on the greater abstract, it would seem ill advised. The institution is built by hand, but it only becomes an institution within the abstract. This is also, incidentally, the exact foundation that modern racism is founded on; individual actions that build on the abstract.
I appreciate your view on being prepared for it, though. Cancel culture makes it a necessity as much as impending recession.
You have to condition people to have an independent thought that breaks their programming. That's why people point out ((())). Eventually, through exposure, people begin to look into it for themselves. That's why you say 13/50. So people become receptive to the facts shown on FBI table 43. Some people legitimately believe only black crimes are reported to explain away that information if you don't bring them to a place where they can notice things they're conditioned to not notice.
This is why /pol/ memes are effective. They're succinct and make people question. That initial act of questioning things that you were taught to not question is "the red pill". What that means isn't ideologically rigid, because it's an individual act of self discovery.
I may not be reading you right here, but this isn't an argument of discriminatory outcome. It's an argument of behavior, an underlying factor. Everything I've said has been about observation of behavior, not of outcome. If you meant something else, I apologize, but you seem to be arguing that "equal opportunity doesn't mean equal outcome", which isn't my point at all. I'm in complete agreement with that statement.
Now, there is certainly an inherent correlation between behavior and outcome. I wouldn't use white in these analogies, because, at least in the US, whites are a majority, and proportions are amplified without and understanding of distribution (on a side note, the anti-AP style guide of capitalizing the W is a nice touch). When you deal with 2% or 13%, it helps contextualize why there's a disproportion. Saying whites are responsible for 64% of anti-social behavior sounds a lot more powerful without the context of whites being 64% of the studied group. Saying whites are responsible for 50% of articles promoting societal degeneracy works the same way (which I can't prove offhand, and I really wish we had a database so I could).
I don't condemn Jewish wealth. I don't condemn Jewish participation in journalism. I condemn their behavior in both how they use, and how they obtain that wealth and influence, disproportionately. And yes, Jews aren't a monolith. There are poor Jews, to be sure. There are wonderful Jews. There are honest Jews. The same applies to blacks, or any other "group". That's not the argument. It's the abstract that matters on the societal level. Anecdotes are great for individual interaction, but only a miniscule data point on demographic observation.
Also, I don't know what the Racial Theory of History is. Is that a tangible thing (CRT?), or is it an allusion to a limited influence of genetic factors on behavior, culture, tradition, competence, etc. on how things have turned out along racial lines?