I think you know that's a very reductionist interpretation of what I said, but I will address it.
I am not agreeing with the SJW's because they are useful idiot college kids who don't understand what they are advocating. Heck, if you can formulate a coherent argument from them I'd like to hear it, because all I hear is a bunch of slogans and half-formed ideas with a general undercurrent of 'whitey bad'. You should know by now that they're the footsoldiers of the establishment; they've never had an original idea in their lives.
As for segregation working? Well, that's what national borders are for, or used to be for in a saner age.
eck, if you can formulate a coherent argument from them I'd like to hear it, because all I hear is a bunch of slogans and half-formed ideas with a general undercurrent of 'whitey bad'. You should know by now that they're the footsoldiers of the establishment; they've never had an original idea in their lives.
Their arguments that whitey are bad are the same arguments stormfags have that jews are bad.
No difference.
As for segregation working? Well, that's what national borders are for, or used to be for in a saner age.
Okay, well in that case I definitely don't agree with them that 'whitey is bad'.
I don't think national borders are a false comparison at all. What purpose do they serve other than to separate different groups of people who want to live differently? That's segregation, by its definition, if not by its politicised American historical definition.
I don't think national borders are a false comparison at all.
It is.
What purpose do they serve other than to separate different groups of people who want to live differently? That's segregation, by its definition, if not by its politicised American historical definition.
Because your comparison is segregation based on nationality, while segregation here is based on race by people who share a nationality.
So, if you don't agree with "whitey is bad" message, then you must agree that "jews are bad" message is also wrong.
Let me get this straight, you are actually agreeing with the SJWS that segregation works and white people are bad?
I think you know that's a very reductionist interpretation of what I said, but I will address it.
I am not agreeing with the SJW's because they are useful idiot college kids who don't understand what they are advocating. Heck, if you can formulate a coherent argument from them I'd like to hear it, because all I hear is a bunch of slogans and half-formed ideas with a general undercurrent of 'whitey bad'. You should know by now that they're the footsoldiers of the establishment; they've never had an original idea in their lives.
As for segregation working? Well, that's what national borders are for, or used to be for in a saner age.
Their arguments that whitey are bad are the same arguments stormfags have that jews are bad.
No difference.
Cool, nice way to make a false comparison.
Okay, well in that case I definitely don't agree with them that 'whitey is bad'.
I don't think national borders are a false comparison at all. What purpose do they serve other than to separate different groups of people who want to live differently? That's segregation, by its definition, if not by its politicised American historical definition.
It is.
Because your comparison is segregation based on nationality, while segregation here is based on race by people who share a nationality.
So, if you don't agree with "whitey is bad" message, then you must agree that "jews are bad" message is also wrong.