Yes. I had a temp ban on half-KiA once but was unbanned at the time of my account deletion. It's kind of ironic that I was perma'd on KiA2 not half-KiA, but that's mostly due to me hardly being active on half-KiA.
Then you would certainly win, because it's easier to win over one out of 99% than one out of 1%.
I suppose the math checks out, but that's not the only thing in play. In open debates, we would be free to talk about what's best for white people and what would actually work to preserve our future. Instead, right-liberal "anti-idpol" frauds get trotted out to "defend" white people from attacks from POC idpol. They then equivocate the two. The strategy can work rhetorically when the alternative view point is POC idpol.
However, pointing out that the "anti-idpol" are supportive of Jewish idpol, presumably because that's a demographic whose future they actually want to preserve, and emphasizing that, even if for argument's sake the anti-idpol faction were operating in good faith, they aren't actually convincing Jews, blacks, etc. to abandon idpol. Even worse, they don't acknowledge how ineffective they have been.
I should probably take a step back here and point out that I don't think everyone who is an "anti-idpol" Zionist is some sort of scheming subverter. The high-agency people who drive a lot of discussion probably know what they are doing and are actively malicious. Random people just tend to repeat talking points without thinking about the implications.
Yes. I had a temp ban on half-KiA once but was unbanned at the time of my account deletion. It's kind of ironic that I was perma'd on KiA2 not half-KiA, but that's mostly due to me hardly being active on half-KiA.
That is so weird. Must have been some sort of oversight. We never permabanned long-term users, only in exceptional circumstances. There was a case where a user with something like 10 earlier comments was permabanned, and when we noticed - he was unbanned with 'time served'.
Glad I don't have to do that anymore.
In open debates, we would be free to talk about what's best for white people and what would actually work to preserve our future.
I question why it is a good thing to debate what is 'good for white people'. In the rest of the world, no one goes around thinking like that. There are no Congolese thinking about 'what is good for black people', or Middle Easterenrs thinking 'what is good for brown people', nor Japanese etc.
However, pointing out that the "anti-idpol" are supportive of Jewish idpol, presumably because that's a demographic whose future they actually want to preserve,
Explain how my position leads to the preservation of Jews and not whites.
good faith, they aren't actually convincing Jews, blacks, etc. to abandon idpol. Even worse, they don't acknowledge how ineffective they have been.
They have had successes. But if success means convincing the other side to abandon this tactic, that probably is not going to happen unless it becomes radioactive.
I should probably take a step back here and point out that I don't think everyone who is an "anti-idpol" Zionist is some sort of scheming subverter. The high-agency people who drive a lot of discussion probably know what they are doing and are actively malicious. Random people just tend to repeat talking points without thinking about the implications.
I don't really care anymore about being banned from subreddit. Reddit is so goddamn awful anymore.
question why it is a good thing to debate what is 'good for white people'. In the rest of the world, no one goes around thinking like that. There are no Congolese thinking about 'what is good for black people', or Middle Easterenrs thinking 'what is good for brown people', nor Japanese etc.
You can sub in "white Americans" if that helps it make sense. Europe is part of it, but it's up to them if they want to go pan-European or not.
Explain how my position leads to the preservation of Jews and not whites.
They end up with an ethnostate dedicated to preserving them. We keep our governments that we have now, that are dedicated to replacing us.
They have had successes.
As in non-zero? Sure. But they're fucking deluded. You had people think Blexit was an actual thing FFS. They don't even criticize Jewish idpol. They might feud with organizations that practice it (especially the ADL), but they don't condemn Jewish idpol itself.
I don't really care anymore about being banned from subreddit. Reddit is so goddamn awful anymore.
It shows that your low opinion of Reddit mods is amply justified though.
You can sub in "white Americans" if that helps it make sense. Europe is part of it, but it's up to them if they want to go pan-European or not.
Why 'white Americans' though? What is it that you have in common with some guy who came in from Ukraine two days ago that you do not with say Clarence Thomas?
They end up with an ethnostate dedicated to preserving them. We keep our governments that we have now, that are dedicated to replacing us.
Israel is not an ethnostate. It's majority non-white and it exerts itself extraordinarily to bring in say Ethiopian Jews, who are black.
Regardless, there is nothing wrong with an ethnostate, like Japan.
I think you misunderstand political motives for demographic ones. The reason they want to replace white people is because white people are not obedient enough. If whites were overwhelmingly Democrats and imported non-whites voted GOP, that would stop in an instant.
As in non-zero? Sure. But they're fucking deluded. You had people think Blexit was an actual thing FFS. They don't even criticize Jewish idpol. They might feud with organizations that practice it (especially the ADL), but they don't condemn Jewish idpol itself.
The large gains among Latinos. Proposition 18 going down in flames in California, with a majority of every ethnic group except blacks and more than 1/3 of blacks voting against it. In California. A majority of Latinos and 1/3 of blacks voted against a proposition, backed by billionaire psychos, that would have given them benefits based on their race.
Why 'white Americans' though? What is it that you have in common with some guy who came in from Ukraine two days ago that you do not with say Clarence Thomas?
Assuming you mean a white Ukrainian, we would be closer in genetics. Things like culture and language would be temporary barriers to finding common ground with a Ukranian. Also, these individualized examples are foolish because that's not how anything works. The relevant question would be whether or not to allow blacks, not specifically Clarence Thomas. Also also, why don't you grill your favorite country's immigration policies, eh?
think you misunderstand political motives for demographic ones. The reason they want to replace white people is because white people are not obedient enough.
The motives don't matter that much, but I still think it's a mix. Ever listen to Tim Wise ranting or Noel Ignatiev? Let's also not pretend that conflict between Jews and Europeans is some new thing, either.
If whites were overwhelmingly Democrats and imported non-whites voted GOP, that would stop in an instant.
The GOP has had plenty of chances to stop this but chooses not to. Instead, they just pander to the "New Americans" and sell out their white voters even harder.
The large gains among Latinos.
At what cost? Your "based" Mayra Flores supports amnesty. I also question how serious this Latino Republican support is. Are they going to stick around after the extremely unpopular Biden admin is gone and after the Republicans end up in charge of a shit economy like the Dems are now?
Proposition 18 going down in flames in California, with a majority of every ethnic group except blacks and more than 1/3 of blacks voting against it. In California. A majority of Latinos and 1/3 of blacks voted against a proposition, backed by billionaire psychos, that would have given them benefits based on their race.
I'm aware of Prop 16. The problem is, it's hard to say that it's them rejecting idpol. Latinos might interpret it as benefiting blacks at their expense and vice versa. A majority of blacks supported CRT and BLM. Affirmative Action has also been a weird issue to track.
A 2018 Gallup poll found that 65% and 61% of respondents said they “generally favor” affirmative-action programs for women and racial minorities, respectively. But when Pew asked in 2019 whether race should be a factor in college-admissions decisions, 73% of respondents, including majorities across racial groups and political parties, said no.
Yes. I had a temp ban on half-KiA once but was unbanned at the time of my account deletion. It's kind of ironic that I was perma'd on KiA2 not half-KiA, but that's mostly due to me hardly being active on half-KiA.
I suppose the math checks out, but that's not the only thing in play. In open debates, we would be free to talk about what's best for white people and what would actually work to preserve our future. Instead, right-liberal "anti-idpol" frauds get trotted out to "defend" white people from attacks from POC idpol. They then equivocate the two. The strategy can work rhetorically when the alternative view point is POC idpol.
However, pointing out that the "anti-idpol" are supportive of Jewish idpol, presumably because that's a demographic whose future they actually want to preserve, and emphasizing that, even if for argument's sake the anti-idpol faction were operating in good faith, they aren't actually convincing Jews, blacks, etc. to abandon idpol. Even worse, they don't acknowledge how ineffective they have been.
I should probably take a step back here and point out that I don't think everyone who is an "anti-idpol" Zionist is some sort of scheming subverter. The high-agency people who drive a lot of discussion probably know what they are doing and are actively malicious. Random people just tend to repeat talking points without thinking about the implications.
That is so weird. Must have been some sort of oversight. We never permabanned long-term users, only in exceptional circumstances. There was a case where a user with something like 10 earlier comments was permabanned, and when we noticed - he was unbanned with 'time served'.
Glad I don't have to do that anymore.
I question why it is a good thing to debate what is 'good for white people'. In the rest of the world, no one goes around thinking like that. There are no Congolese thinking about 'what is good for black people', or Middle Easterenrs thinking 'what is good for brown people', nor Japanese etc.
Explain how my position leads to the preservation of Jews and not whites.
They have had successes. But if success means convincing the other side to abandon this tactic, that probably is not going to happen unless it becomes radioactive.
Generally true, yes.
I don't really care anymore about being banned from subreddit. Reddit is so goddamn awful anymore.
You can sub in "white Americans" if that helps it make sense. Europe is part of it, but it's up to them if they want to go pan-European or not.
They end up with an ethnostate dedicated to preserving them. We keep our governments that we have now, that are dedicated to replacing us.
As in non-zero? Sure. But they're fucking deluded. You had people think Blexit was an actual thing FFS. They don't even criticize Jewish idpol. They might feud with organizations that practice it (especially the ADL), but they don't condemn Jewish idpol itself.
It shows that your low opinion of Reddit mods is amply justified though.
Why 'white Americans' though? What is it that you have in common with some guy who came in from Ukraine two days ago that you do not with say Clarence Thomas?
Israel is not an ethnostate. It's majority non-white and it exerts itself extraordinarily to bring in say Ethiopian Jews, who are black.
Regardless, there is nothing wrong with an ethnostate, like Japan.
I think you misunderstand political motives for demographic ones. The reason they want to replace white people is because white people are not obedient enough. If whites were overwhelmingly Democrats and imported non-whites voted GOP, that would stop in an instant.
The large gains among Latinos. Proposition 18 going down in flames in California, with a majority of every ethnic group except blacks and more than 1/3 of blacks voting against it. In California. A majority of Latinos and 1/3 of blacks voted against a proposition, backed by billionaire psychos, that would have given them benefits based on their race.
And that is a thing.
Assuming you mean a white Ukrainian, we would be closer in genetics. Things like culture and language would be temporary barriers to finding common ground with a Ukranian. Also, these individualized examples are foolish because that's not how anything works. The relevant question would be whether or not to allow blacks, not specifically Clarence Thomas. Also also, why don't you grill your favorite country's immigration policies, eh?
https://scored.co/c/KotakuInAction2/p/142B5hQHGD/israeli-minister-90-of-ukrainian/c
The motives don't matter that much, but I still think it's a mix. Ever listen to Tim Wise ranting or Noel Ignatiev? Let's also not pretend that conflict between Jews and Europeans is some new thing, either.
The GOP has had plenty of chances to stop this but chooses not to. Instead, they just pander to the "New Americans" and sell out their white voters even harder.
At what cost? Your "based" Mayra Flores supports amnesty. I also question how serious this Latino Republican support is. Are they going to stick around after the extremely unpopular Biden admin is gone and after the Republicans end up in charge of a shit economy like the Dems are now?
I'm aware of Prop 16. The problem is, it's hard to say that it's them rejecting idpol. Latinos might interpret it as benefiting blacks at their expense and vice versa. A majority of blacks supported CRT and BLM. Affirmative Action has also been a weird issue to track.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/affirmative-action-campaign-divides-californians-11603407398
So it's a bit weird that the Prop lost.