It's not about embracing it, it's about acknowledging who you are and what makes you who you are.
If you think your skin color makes you who you are, you are promoting the bio-leninism that will destroy you.
There are countless answers he could have given that are much better than this one; I for one, would have also brought up my ethnicity - and the person he was talking to even gave him some examples, but all he's done is to complain about characterization of whites by rad libs, and then re-assert liberal individualism.
Good.
Although I, too, would have gone a different way. Reverse the question and have him answer what's positive about being black, and tear him to shreds no matter what he says.
You're right, your ideology is clouding your judgement. You're arguing against a point I didn't make as if I were a normie.
I didn't even allege that all races were equal, or that there were no genetic differences between races. There has to be, that's one of the reasons people are different colors.
That doesn't change my point that the genetic differences between races are not the sole, or even primary, explanation for the disparity of behaviors.
As I said here, racialism will promote the bio-leninism you hope to avoid with racialism, because you are denying personal responsibility and accountability for change and improvement.
While there are genetic limits to the capabilities of all individuals, the boundaries of those limits are so narrow in the mind of racial determinists that they think all behavior can be determined solely through genetics. This is demonstrably false, and not what any single geneticist would ever argue. Furthermore, there is still a problem with the categorizaiton of race because it is still only an inter-temporal statistical abstraction of mostly self-identifying individuals. It is not a good tool for measuring genetic sub-categories of humans.
And did so for a reason, that is to attempt to make race irrelevant and denigrate its existence as being whatsoever meaningful, out of aforementioned reasons.
And that reason is because race is a terrible stand in for genetics because it doesn't even involve genetics, and is a statistical abstraction created mostly by the cultural perspective of different countries. Don't talk to me about the importance of genetics in a conversation about an intertemporal abstraction that involves different genetic groups, ethnicities, and is tied together by religions & languages.
Causal determinism is, in my view, the most reasonable approach to our existence (how it functions); I don't believe in free will, as commonly understood. It's also one of reasons why the notion of "voluntary trade" collapses, along with individualism, etc, but not the primary reason obviously. That, in no way whatsoever, negates personal "responsibility and accountability," and if it did it'd speak more about the ideology and politics that came to that conclusion, and less about reality of it.
Posh. It seems to me that your concept of Causal Determinism is basically another way of saying "Deconstructing Individuality". It's the intentional attack of individualism by rhetorical warfare. "If I can argue that something in environment contributed to you making a decision, then you didn't make the decision". It's the reversal of the deconstructionist argument on the concept of White Culture: "White Culture doesn't exist because I can argue that anything actually stems from something else, therefore nothing is inherently White, and therefore White Culture doesn't exist... ... ... until I redefine it as genocidal, psychopathic, theft".
You liked the weapon, you just didn't like what it was pointed at. All "Applied Post-Modernist" philosophical strains work like this.
It's a form of extended family, with many forms of it existing, including broader ones.
Garbage.Religion is a better allusion to an extended family unit then race is. At least then you can guarantee that you have a shared language and values.
Race isn't even useful enough to compare to the Political Science definition of Nation. And even though that may be an abstraction, it's definitional requirements meet enough of a standard that you know that you are forming a category around a fairly stable or well-identified social community. A race is even more broad, vague, and abstract then that! It's an abstraction of abstractions of abstractions, desperately attempting to smear away the distinctions of utterly dissimilar people through the use of broad-based statistical manipulation.
The concept of an extended social-family system is a clan, not a race. And a clan is far more of a refined category then even an ethnicity is.
I never said that, but if you want me to be more specific, if you think the genetics that inform your skin color are the primary determining factor of your behavior, you will be rewarding poorly cultured bio-leninist whites with the ability to take credit for the success of other whites, and deny personal responsibility in improving themselves while blaming other races/ethnicities/lesser-whites for their failures.
Racialism is always designed to be an excuse wielded by useful idiots to enshrine the lead racialists into positions of power. It is nothing else.
When you excuse changing behavior by pointing at genetics, you promote individual unaccountability. You guarantee stagnation and decay, first among individuals, then among society.
No fucking shit, moron. Which is why being proud of being "white" is jewish trickery, and you dopes still fall for it. There is no "White Identity" and there never will be. Anyone trying to claim one is just creating the scapegoat these people desperately want. Fucking wise up already.
What he likes about being white is probably being smart enough and having enough self-restraint to not do something very self-destructive just because they goaded him for like 5 minutes.
Reminds me of the old conversation: "Black people created a double standard that they get to say the n word as a term of endearment but white/asian people are immediately slandered as racist if they even think about saying it" "Sure you can! Say the N word, cracker!" It does nothing to prove their point (I'd argue it proves the contrary), and yet somehow people think it does.
Gavin McInnes provides a good example of how to defend Whiteness without being self-destructive and without denigrating other races. I particularly like how he was able to use the "United States bad; Europe good" shitlib narrative against her as an argument that "more Whites = more better"
Pretty much. If I were asked that question I would have answered "a good balance between high IQ and a culture that respects tradition while being flexible enough to allow for non-conformity when appropriate"
That's one of the reasons I think Asians do so well in Western countries: when they get outside of their highly conformist cultures, provided they're able to adapt to the less conformist culture they have the high IQ that allows them to thrive.
You're missing the point. He is opposed to racialism.
The question is intentionally designed to embrace racialism, and then call him a hypocrite, tell him he's a racist, or tell him that whatever he said isn't white.
There's literally no answer he can give that wouldn't be construed as racist.
Even if he were to repeat the black dude's words about cultural norms, tradition, and commonalities around the diaspora, the next words directed at him would be some way of saying 'BUT WHITEY, THOSE ARE AWFUL.'
As a white person in the 21st century you are simply not allowed to express any affection for your own people and culture. You are expeted to roll over and die while the nations your ancestors built are destroyed forever.
They want you dead. Your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think its funny.
I fucking hate Marc Lamont Hill, I always have. This sneaky fucking ape knew exactly what he was doing when he asked that.
This is why that "power + privilege" bullshit chaps my ass so much. If that were real and Whites had power over him, he never would have asked that question. The whole "oppression" thing is a thin facade that everyone is forced to play along with. They know it's bullshit and they laugh about it.
The correct response to that question: the same things that anyone likes about their own race or ethnicity. What do you like about being black? Your culture? Your traditions? Your values? Why wouldn't I like those pieces of my race?
I enjoy having human hair. A colorful face with sharp and definable features. A brain that recognizes patterns and motivates me to worry about my future. A heart that loves my children and wants to watch them grow and learn. I love my credit score. I love a good belt that holds my pants in place. It's the little things really.
There's nothing great about being white. "White" is literally just a skin color. Be proud of being german, irish, french, whatever, but "White" is nothing. You're an idiot OP and so is anyone crying about this response.
There is no white American identity you stupid mongrel. Are you telling me Portland whites are the same as white people in rural Nebraska? Christian whites the same as Pagan ones? German whites the same as Italian? You and the other brainlets who upvoted you couldnt even answer my question, just threw out as many CIA talking points as possible to avoid actually thinking for yourself for once. You dumb motherfuckers are useful idiots just as much as any SJW
"It's a mixed bag. Smart enough to create the western world. Not smart enough to preserve it."
Rufo is a classic liberal and he is a White man married to a Asian woman.
Rufo believes in color blindness.
You won't see someone like Rufo embracing his White heritage.
This is how I expected him to answer.
Rufo has been very good for optics and he has been the most successful individual in terms of chipping away at CRT.
I see the points that you and Darren are bringing up but you won't be able to stop CRT by embracing white racialism.
If you think your skin color makes you who you are, you are promoting the bio-leninism that will destroy you.
Good.
Although I, too, would have gone a different way. Reverse the question and have him answer what's positive about being black, and tear him to shreds no matter what he says.
It's a rhetorical trap.
You're right, your ideology is clouding your judgement. You're arguing against a point I didn't make as if I were a normie.
I didn't even allege that all races were equal, or that there were no genetic differences between races. There has to be, that's one of the reasons people are different colors.
That doesn't change my point that the genetic differences between races are not the sole, or even primary, explanation for the disparity of behaviors.
As I said here, racialism will promote the bio-leninism you hope to avoid with racialism, because you are denying personal responsibility and accountability for change and improvement.
While there are genetic limits to the capabilities of all individuals, the boundaries of those limits are so narrow in the mind of racial determinists that they think all behavior can be determined solely through genetics. This is demonstrably false, and not what any single geneticist would ever argue. Furthermore, there is still a problem with the categorizaiton of race because it is still only an inter-temporal statistical abstraction of mostly self-identifying individuals. It is not a good tool for measuring genetic sub-categories of humans.
And that reason is because race is a terrible stand in for genetics because it doesn't even involve genetics, and is a statistical abstraction created mostly by the cultural perspective of different countries. Don't talk to me about the importance of genetics in a conversation about an intertemporal abstraction that involves different genetic groups, ethnicities, and is tied together by religions & languages.
Posh. It seems to me that your concept of Causal Determinism is basically another way of saying "Deconstructing Individuality". It's the intentional attack of individualism by rhetorical warfare. "If I can argue that something in environment contributed to you making a decision, then you didn't make the decision". It's the reversal of the deconstructionist argument on the concept of White Culture: "White Culture doesn't exist because I can argue that anything actually stems from something else, therefore nothing is inherently White, and therefore White Culture doesn't exist... ... ... until I redefine it as genocidal, psychopathic, theft".
You liked the weapon, you just didn't like what it was pointed at. All "Applied Post-Modernist" philosophical strains work like this.
Garbage. Religion is a better allusion to an extended family unit then race is. At least then you can guarantee that you have a shared language and values.
Race isn't even useful enough to compare to the Political Science definition of Nation. And even though that may be an abstraction, it's definitional requirements meet enough of a standard that you know that you are forming a category around a fairly stable or well-identified social community. A race is even more broad, vague, and abstract then that! It's an abstraction of abstractions of abstractions, desperately attempting to smear away the distinctions of utterly dissimilar people through the use of broad-based statistical manipulation.
The concept of an extended social-family system is a clan, not a race. And a clan is far more of a refined category then even an ethnicity is.
Oh here we go again with the absurd premise that race is just physical appearance.
I never said that, but if you want me to be more specific, if you think the genetics that inform your skin color are the primary determining factor of your behavior, you will be rewarding poorly cultured bio-leninist whites with the ability to take credit for the success of other whites, and deny personal responsibility in improving themselves while blaming other races/ethnicities/lesser-whites for their failures.
Racialism is always designed to be an excuse wielded by useful idiots to enshrine the lead racialists into positions of power. It is nothing else.
When you excuse changing behavior by pointing at genetics, you promote individual unaccountability. You guarantee stagnation and decay, first among individuals, then among society.
FFS.
THAT'S NOT EVEN WHAT MONGOLOID MEANS YOU IDIOT
Why do I have to explain your own racism to you?
Are Germans similar to Turks? Both are white
Cry about it, bitch. They literally are. Almost like "white" is not a real identity, huh?
No fucking shit, moron. Which is why being proud of being "white" is jewish trickery, and you dopes still fall for it. There is no "White Identity" and there never will be. Anyone trying to claim one is just creating the scapegoat these people desperately want. Fucking wise up already.
What's he supposed to say? "It's a good blend of intelligence, inquisitiveness, and empathy"?
It was "individuality" or "vitamin D".
What he likes about being white is probably being smart enough and having enough self-restraint to not do something very self-destructive just because they goaded him for like 5 minutes.
Reminds me of the old conversation: "Black people created a double standard that they get to say the n word as a term of endearment but white/asian people are immediately slandered as racist if they even think about saying it" "Sure you can! Say the N word, cracker!" It does nothing to prove their point (I'd argue it proves the contrary), and yet somehow people think it does.
Gavin McInnes provides a good example of how to defend Whiteness without being self-destructive and without denigrating other races. I particularly like how he was able to use the "United States bad; Europe good" shitlib narrative against her as an argument that "more Whites = more better"
Pretty much. If I were asked that question I would have answered "a good balance between high IQ and a culture that respects tradition while being flexible enough to allow for non-conformity when appropriate"
That's one of the reasons I think Asians do so well in Western countries: when they get outside of their highly conformist cultures, provided they're able to adapt to the less conformist culture they have the high IQ that allows them to thrive.
You're missing the point. He is opposed to racialism.
The question is intentionally designed to embrace racialism, and then call him a hypocrite, tell him he's a racist, or tell him that whatever he said isn't white.
There's literally no answer he can give that wouldn't be construed as racist. Even if he were to repeat the black dude's words about cultural norms, tradition, and commonalities around the diaspora, the next words directed at him would be some way of saying 'BUT WHITEY, THOSE ARE AWFUL.'
As a white person in the 21st century you are simply not allowed to express any affection for your own people and culture. You are expeted to roll over and die while the nations your ancestors built are destroyed forever.
They want you dead. Your kids raped and brainwashed, and they think its funny.
Good.
It is a false statement designed to attack you for being white.
You do not win this game by playing by the enemy's rules.
Marc Lamont Hill is so biased, that he actually thinks he won that exchange, when, in fact, he was totally owned.
Thanks, Marc, for posting a video that demonstrates the failure of your racist way of thinking.
The best argument he could make from it is: "this stupid mayo doesn't understand that CRT is abolishing whiteness in the same way he is!"
But he still didn't do it, he's actually insinuating a worse position.
"This stupid mayo proves there's nothing good about whiteness, that's why we should abolish it."
I fucking hate Marc Lamont Hill, I always have. This sneaky fucking ape knew exactly what he was doing when he asked that.
This is why that "power + privilege" bullshit chaps my ass so much. If that were real and Whites had power over him, he never would have asked that question. The whole "oppression" thing is a thin facade that everyone is forced to play along with. They know it's bullshit and they laugh about it.
Dumb angry monkey gets angry over dumb question being ignored.
When you evolve back into a person and not just another animal in a suit, we'll be glad to talk.
The correct response to that question: the same things that anyone likes about their own race or ethnicity. What do you like about being black? Your culture? Your traditions? Your values? Why wouldn't I like those pieces of my race?
There's something repulsive about a man squirming unable to defend their beliefs. You can practically taste his fear of answering the question.
Instead of answering, he should have shot back with "I dunno, what do you like about being Human?"
I enjoy having human hair. A colorful face with sharp and definable features. A brain that recognizes patterns and motivates me to worry about my future. A heart that loves my children and wants to watch them grow and learn. I love my credit score. I love a good belt that holds my pants in place. It's the little things really.
There's nothing great about being white. "White" is literally just a skin color. Be proud of being german, irish, french, whatever, but "White" is nothing. You're an idiot OP and so is anyone crying about this response.
There is no white American identity you stupid mongrel. Are you telling me Portland whites are the same as white people in rural Nebraska? Christian whites the same as Pagan ones? German whites the same as Italian? You and the other brainlets who upvoted you couldnt even answer my question, just threw out as many CIA talking points as possible to avoid actually thinking for yourself for once. You dumb motherfuckers are useful idiots just as much as any SJW