Context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8-FgrJ0J-o
In the cartoon a dog is dancing to some music. Woke faggot comes up to him, turns off his music and starts screaming. The dog turns the music again (he just wants to be left alone). After a while, the wokie smashes the dog's radio.
Instead of the dog tearing out his neck, he just gets sad and starts crying. Until, his friend brings another radio to play music.
The video ends there but if there was a next scene, it'd just the wokie smashing the second radio and the dogs going to walmart to get a new radio (to be smashed).
Ignoring certain people doesn't work.
I'm asking questions here Dom. I want to understand your position on things, because clearly white people are being targeted, especially by black people.
White culture is being destroyed by the left.
At what point does it cross the line for you?
Don't be a butthurt jannie
Fine, I'm sorry for snapping at you.
First, you didn't violate any rules.
The issue is about a leftist racialist ideology or an eternal race war where blacks are a dependent slave race controlled by jews. Even the concept of "white culture" is at best a bastardization of wildly different cultures and ethnicities. This is why, typically, "white" only meant "european" to the Americans, and prior to the 40's it didn't typically even mean that. White was much more closely aligned with the concept of British, or WASP. When Enoch Powell gave his rivers of blood speech, he didn't argue that it was okay to import 20 million Albanians because they were of European descent. He was effetely just referring to British.
So, when we're talking about the destruction of culture, we're talking about the destruction of western cultures. Not "White Culture". Such a term is as meaningless as "Asian Culture". Even in anti-whiteness trainings that have been put out, the culture they are targeting in America, Canada, and Britain is typically just "The Protestant Work Ethic". The "X Country has no culture" has also been applied as a rhetorical warfare strategy to France, Sweden, Ireland, Norway, ect. Each of those are wildly different cultures. Those cultures are being intentionally undermined to insert a Socialist narrative and the use of a multiplicity of migrant dependent classes can create a balkanized state, that operates off of a party-boss system to secure the established power structure, much in the way that Tammany Hall did in NYC.
So, for the sake of understanding Rule 2 & Rule 16, let's take every typical race out of it, and just use Indian tribes because the rule is meant to be generic. Let's go with Iroquois, Navajo, and Cherokee. Let's say there is ethnic tensions and violence between them. Rule 16 would apply if you claimed that the Cherokee were an inherently violent race who were hell bent on exterminating the Navajo. If you said that there were more attacks on the Navajo by the Cherokee, then vice versa, then that's fine. If you said that the Cherokee were destroying Navajo culture, then I'd probably ask you what you mean. If you are just saying that the Cherokee raids are destroying or disrupting tribal ceremonies, then fine. If you say that the Cherokee are by definition bloodthirsty savages, then there's a Rule 16 issue. If you say that the Cherokee whom are raiding the camps are acting like blood-thirsty savages; then that's fine.
Now, if you say that, "The Navajo have a right to defend themselves from Cherokee attacks", there's no issue. If you say "I'm glad the Navajo speared that dude from the latest Cherokee raid", that's glorifying violence in the form of self-defense. It's close, but I accept the praise of self-defense, because if it is self-defense, it is an inherently moral action. If it's not readily apparent, I may remove the comment via Rule 2, because we do not want to glorify what amounts to criminal. offensive, violence. But what if the Cherokee declare war on the Navajo. I am not prepared to cuck to pro-genocide & pro-jingoism, as Reddit did, and accept that glorifying violence against ethnic Russians was okay. I'd have to stick a case by case basis of each comment or engagement, or ban the whole war topic entirely if it became impossible to moderate. I'd rather keep the same sentiment that the violence has to be observably defensive in nature if you are going to praise the actions. You can explain the rationality for a controversial engagement (ie: "that horseman had to be killed in ambush because otherwise he would have reported the position of the baggage train"), but we'd have to just not allow praise.
I'm not going to tolerate the batshit fucking insane rhetoric I've seen from the political left these past 10 years since they've gone into full war-mongering mode. We're not doing "there are no good Russians", we're not doing "there are no civilians in Israel", we're not doing "you had one job" from July 13th.
Which gets into the concept to what you were primarily asking about. What if the Cherokee were properly trying to forcibly remove, enslave, or kill the Navajo? Same standard as before. Explicitly defensive actions. "But a counter-attack is defensive!" No it isn't. It's a counter-attack. Counter-attacks, reprisal killings, forced relocations, or any other offensive action is still and offensive action. Even if you claim it's justifiable, that doesn't mean it doesn't violate Rule 2. "We need to go to the Cherokee village, and everyone there should be rounded up and forced out." is a violation of Rule 2. "The Navajo raid rounded up the Cherokee in the village" is not a violation of Rule 2.
Where this might cross over with Rule 16 is if you say, "The Cherokee should be rounded up by the Navajo because you can't trust them not to attack later." That's a Rule 16 post.
Questions?
Yes.
If one group is actively being genocided, let's use the extreme example of jews being rounded up and sent on trains to camps or getting executed in the streets, isn't any action taken against the people committing that act and preventing the methods used defensive in nature? Sabotaging railways, etc.
Or are you going to be a "compromise your way onto train cars" kind of person?
Sabotaging railways is wildly different than anything that's been brought up so far. It's significantly more mild.
Any action is not justified. No excuse justifies any response. Same reason that even if someone is firing a gun at you from a nearby street corner, you can't throw a grenade at the street corner and kill a dozen innocent people in defending yourself. So, do not feed me this ridiculous false dichotomy where I either support "genocide in self defense" or I'm "a pacifist that supports genocide over preserving my own life."
Sabotaging a railway is possibly as mild damaging signage. It could effectively be lowered to Civil Disobedience. What's being called for, and what I just had to ban someone for is mass murder in response to theoretically lowering the maximum quality of life achievable. That's literally the single most disproportionate response I can imagine.
Unless you're talking about intentionally causing a train derailment to kill everyone on the training and then people in a nearby village, it might not even be considered violence, let alone violent speech. And again, the mass killing of innocent civilians is not acceptable, nor is the support for it on this board.