Those are two completely different, unlinked statements. They're not interchangable unless you completely redefine multiple words' meanings.
They’re linked by the context you retard. You said the following two statements in the same response to me:
Of course [unthinking racialism can be a good thing]
When your only salvation is overpowering a people unified in their desire to enslave you, the coordinated strength of an unthinking racial blob might just be the right tool for the job.
Then I replied directly to that notion with:
Where has it been established that unthinking racialism is the only salvation for checks notes unthinking racialism?
The entire reason you’re shitting your pants right now is because I ignored your use of “might be”, because IN CONTEXT you are obviously arguing that it is. If you need the word “might” to be present in my question to avoid you getting shit everywhere, here you go champ:
Where has it been established that unthinking racialism MIGHT BE the only salvation for checks notes unthinking racialism?
Happy now champ? Can you manage a response that doesn’t tangent to chix with dix?
You're still fucking misquoting me and I can only assume maliciously at this point, since every browser has a fucking copy paste function.
I said it might be the best tool for the job, not might be the only tool. That is not a trivial quibble. It's a fundamental distinction of formal logic that I kid you not even goddamn pigs can learn. That is the difference between opening your soup with a can opener and trying to eat your soup with a can opener.
Trying to make bullshit like that go unchallenged is the first step to building a fundamental lie that propaganda can be built on, and I'm not buying that you're doing it accidentally anymore.
Mister pissed-his-pants-over-semantics, you truly are retarded. For so many reasons but I’ll just specify this one and leave it there:
You are the only one introducing confusion and misunderstanding to our conversation here. I have always been talking about unthinking racialism, you then go on to describe thinking racialism (i.e. super/above the purely instinctual) and thinking disgust (the parent/surgeon).
When people mass as a mob, they are acting instinctually, when people mass as a militia, they are acting governed by thought. Can you grok the difference?
You can't have thinking racialism, that's an oxymoron. If you only sometimes support people of a certain race because in that particular instance you thought about it and decided they deserve your support for other reasons that's not racialism anymore, that's just a damned coincidence. If those coincidences lead you to decide to support one race disproportionately more than another, that's still not racialism, it's just proof that race isn't just a social construct.
It's only racialism if your decision was based on their race. That's both the great flaw of it, it gives less accurate answers, and the power of it, it gives much faster and more consistent answers across the entire group. It frees up time and effort so that if a situation calls for group intervention you can immediately reach consensus and self-organize into action in large numbers quickly. Non racialist decision making instead leaves you handwringing about the details and investigating the wider context so long that by the time you reach any kind of consensus you realize racialists of a different stripe have already organized, raided a police station and stomped a guy's head in for being the wrong side of a racial divide. There's no putting humpty Dumpty back together at that point. Where you have the time and the luxury of waiting to get the best answer we can discard racialism for it's flaws. But when you need expedience to race against a group who will rapidly decide against you 100% of the time, some inaccuracy is a secondary concern to not letting that group make every choice for you.
I let the "unthinking racialism" slide because I supposed a little harmless tautology for emphasis is nothing to quibble over. But now you're trying to invent a "thinking racialism" so you can have your cake and eat it as you deny words you plainly said and pretend you can silo off the good parts of racialism from the bad without completely neutralizing it, I guess I need to go back and correct that too.
Wrong, unthinking racialism is only taking account of race. Thinking racialism is taking account of race as one part of the whole picture.
Thinking racialism = a nation for every race and a race for every nation. This is how you get the world on your side
Unthinking racialism = we need to go conquer the world and spread our ideals and culture through force no matter what. This is how you get the world in opposition to you
They’re linked by the context you retard. You said the following two statements in the same response to me:
Then I replied directly to that notion with:
The entire reason you’re shitting your pants right now is because I ignored your use of “might be”, because IN CONTEXT you are obviously arguing that it is. If you need the word “might” to be present in my question to avoid you getting shit everywhere, here you go champ:
Happy now champ? Can you manage a response that doesn’t tangent to chix with dix?
Are you taking the piss now?
You're still fucking misquoting me and I can only assume maliciously at this point, since every browser has a fucking copy paste function.
I said it might be the best tool for the job, not might be the only tool. That is not a trivial quibble. It's a fundamental distinction of formal logic that I kid you not even goddamn pigs can learn. That is the difference between opening your soup with a can opener and trying to eat your soup with a can opener.
Trying to make bullshit like that go unchallenged is the first step to building a fundamental lie that propaganda can be built on, and I'm not buying that you're doing it accidentally anymore.
Mister pissed-his-pants-over-semantics, you truly are retarded. For so many reasons but I’ll just specify this one and leave it there:
You are the only one introducing confusion and misunderstanding to our conversation here. I have always been talking about unthinking racialism, you then go on to describe thinking racialism (i.e. super/above the purely instinctual) and thinking disgust (the parent/surgeon).
When people mass as a mob, they are acting instinctually, when people mass as a militia, they are acting governed by thought. Can you grok the difference?
You can't have thinking racialism, that's an oxymoron. If you only sometimes support people of a certain race because in that particular instance you thought about it and decided they deserve your support for other reasons that's not racialism anymore, that's just a damned coincidence. If those coincidences lead you to decide to support one race disproportionately more than another, that's still not racialism, it's just proof that race isn't just a social construct.
It's only racialism if your decision was based on their race. That's both the great flaw of it, it gives less accurate answers, and the power of it, it gives much faster and more consistent answers across the entire group. It frees up time and effort so that if a situation calls for group intervention you can immediately reach consensus and self-organize into action in large numbers quickly. Non racialist decision making instead leaves you handwringing about the details and investigating the wider context so long that by the time you reach any kind of consensus you realize racialists of a different stripe have already organized, raided a police station and stomped a guy's head in for being the wrong side of a racial divide. There's no putting humpty Dumpty back together at that point. Where you have the time and the luxury of waiting to get the best answer we can discard racialism for it's flaws. But when you need expedience to race against a group who will rapidly decide against you 100% of the time, some inaccuracy is a secondary concern to not letting that group make every choice for you.
I let the "unthinking racialism" slide because I supposed a little harmless tautology for emphasis is nothing to quibble over. But now you're trying to invent a "thinking racialism" so you can have your cake and eat it as you deny words you plainly said and pretend you can silo off the good parts of racialism from the bad without completely neutralizing it, I guess I need to go back and correct that too.
Wrong, unthinking racialism is only taking account of race. Thinking racialism is taking account of race as one part of the whole picture.
Thinking racialism = a nation for every race and a race for every nation. This is how you get the world on your side
Unthinking racialism = we need to go conquer the world and spread our ideals and culture through force no matter what. This is how you get the world in opposition to you