That's different though because white people are a mindless pathogen that spreads and kills.
See, Starship Troopers is "fascist" because they dehumanize the gentile Arachnid refugees, and dehumanization is wrong!
BTW, never forget that white people have a virus in their brain
/s if it's needed.
As usual, leftists are the fascists here, by their own definitions.
The censorship on reddit is so fucked up now. There are a number of subreddits where certain word combinations are automatically and silently deleted. If you get past that hurdle, the mods will delete anything that goes against the narrative.
I just caught a ban in a thread about some random white guy saying something racist. I posted prominent, powerful, influential people saying the exact same thing about whites (because, if it's wrong to say "kill all jews" then it should be wrong to say "kill all whites") and they banned me.
...but, it took the mods two whole days, so a few people got to see my counterexample. In the future, the AI will ban me immediately.
And what's scary is that it creates this bubble where leftists have no fucking clue what the counterarguments are to their ideology.
worlds that you don't understand (and you subsequently damage)
This reminds me of a story I heard that illustrates one difference between a progressive and a conservative:
A progressive and a conservative are walking together through the woods. They come upon an open field. Running through the middle of the field is a fence, with a gate to one side.
They pause for a moment and try to figure out why this field would be partitioned this way. There appears to be no livestock or crops. Neither of them can see a reason for the field to exist. They both shrug their shoulders over the mystery.
The conservative then turns and walks toward the gate. He opens the gate, walks through, and closes it behind him. The progressive sets about demolishing the fence.
The moral of the story is that a progressive is too quick to destroy a thing. Their assumption is that it serves no valid purpose, or even that it's intentionally harmful - product of the "patriarchy" or whatever.
There’s definitely a critical mass below which a political commentator cannot survive without the big platforms (YouTube or a TV network). Molyneux was below the threshold.
One scary implication of this face is that it’s in the best interests of the leftist establishment to crush newcomers before they reach the threshold. I’m sure they’ve figured this one. I wonder how many great people were spotted by the algorithm as having a sharp upward trajectory and preemptively banned and the rest of us never know they existed.
“Authoritative sources” are the primary means of controlling the narrative. A black guy can mow down a crowd of peas while shouting “I’m doing this because I hate white people” and you won’t be able to mention that on Wikipedia even though you have the video. No “authoritative source” will mention it
Can you cite any cases where the cops have their guns trained on a guy, and yet the guy is fast enough to produce a weapon and get the first shot off?
I get what you’re saying about the general case: cops are holstered and a dude draws and fires before the cop can draw and fire. But once you’ve got a gun trained on them, I don’t see how you’d get the first shot off.
So what I’m saying is that the cops were safe and could have reacted more slowly
This is so sad. I literally feel bad for you
You're the idiot that claimed that Malaria was one of the less deadly diseases that Europeans had faced.
No, I didn’t. I said that Europeans had faced worse diseases than Africans. That is a comparison between how malaria affects Africans (not Europeans) and how the Black Plague affects Europeans
We really can’t continue this conversation until you successfully parse that sentence
If you google her, they've already taken away her teaching position. She will never receive a grant or get a paper published.
They might allow her to stay at the university if she's tenured, because they have an enormous endowment so they can afford it. But she is effectively cut off from the world of academia.
So much of this is shockingly wrong.
Nope. Everything I've said is correct. You're the one who's wrong. Let's keep score, shall we?
Sickle Cell Anemia is a disease not a natural resistance.
I didn't say "sickle cell anemia" I said "sickle cells" - do you understand the difference? Sickle cells is an adaptation that reduces the mortality from malaria. In a region where malaria is endemic, sickle cells are a huge advantage. A little anemia is a small price to pay. (source)
So, I'm right. They developed resistance to the disease. That's one point for me. Your reply fails, so that's negative 1 point for you.
Malaria has been the most deadly disease that Europeans have ever faced.
How is mortality to Europeans at all relevant to this conversation?? Holy shit! You're way off track. Here, let me help you. You claimed that malaria prevented blacks from developing technology. I compared malaria's effect on blacks to the black plague's effect on whites.
That is the comparison being made. How deadly is malaria to blacks (who have some protection due to the sickle cell trait) vs. how deadly is the black plague to whites.
Here are two things that are irrelevant: (1) how deadly is the black plague to blacks (2) how deadly is malaria to whites
Once again, -1 points to you for raising an irrelevant objection.
Wheat isn't just some random grass.
I didn't say that wheat was "just some random grass" - I said that wheat was created by our ancestors through selective breeding. And what our ancestors started with is no poorer than what Africans have available to them.
The score is now 2 to -3
Sub-Saharan Africa's waterways are absolute shit.
Given your performance in this thread so far (literally everything up to this point has been irrelevant), I'm reticent to believe you here, but I actually don't know much about the geology so, I'll throw you a bone and grant you one point. The score is 2 to -2
There wasn't any lions in England and France.
I literally mentioned the name of the gave IN FUCKING FRANCE where our ancestors drew lions that they saw with their own two eyes.
The people who lived in those caves and drew those lions were at approximately the same state of development as must africans today. So what's different between these two groups? The presence of lions is not the difference.
The ancestors of the europeans killed off or tamed the megafauna, then developed a great civilization that flew to the moon. The ancestors of the first australian aborigines also killed off their megafauna, but then failed to develop a great civilization. Meanwhile, the africans did absolutely nothing.
Another point for me, and another point taken away from you for raising a faulty objection. Final score, me: 3, you: -4
Pfft you obviously don’t understand modern art. See, the car represents the world, and the man represents the USA. This piece depicts the world consumed in conflagration while the USA pisses itself due to incompetent leadership, and stabs itself due to self-hate
The artist is a genius and I just bought the nft of this landmark work for a million rubles
Malaria kills off density
(a) they evolved natural resistance to malaria (sickle cells)
(b) malaria is less deadly than the diseases Europeans faced. The Renaissance happened after the black plague ravaged Europe.
high-yield cash crops are hard to grow
"high yield cash crops" don't just fall into your lap. They're created through artificial selection by farmers carefully and deliberately crossing lower-yield strains.
Other races did this. Wheat was created from, basically, grass. Rice too. And when you create a living thing through evolution, you by definition create it to prefer your own climate.
So other races put in the effort to create these crops, and now you're making an excuse for blacks - "dey wont gibs me no crops!"
All that said, the Bantu (arguably the most successful sub-saharan african race) actually did invent farming on their own, and that was instrumental to their success. As in most things, the difference between blacks and other races isn't one of kind (that is to say, it isn't that one had farming and the other did not) it's a difference of degree (other races just do it better).
they don't have many navigable waterways
Fair enough, but they still could have created civilizations along the waterways that they had. It's like if you have $100k and you waste it, and your excuse is, "well that other guy had a million" - that's true, but you still wasted what you had
humans can be hunted by actual god damned predators.
That's true everywhere that humans have ever lived. There used to be fucking lions in Europe. Why do you think so many kings have lions in their heraldry?
There are drawings of lions in the caves of Chauvet. Much later, the Greeks had lots of stories of lions because they still roamed asia minor.
...what most humans did, when they entered a new area, is hunt the mega-fauna too extinction. Europeans did it. Asians did it. Even the aboriginal australians did it 50k years ago!
So again, this isn't a very good excuse.
There are parallels to Liberia. US slaves who were freed were offered free tickets back to Africa, to a country specifically created for them. Some of them took the offer, moved to Liberia, and set themselves up as the aristocracy, with native Africans as serfs - basically slaves.
The thing you have to understand is that the objection to slavery as a concept, meaning the idea that “no person should be a slave” is an abstract concept- and frankly, that’s the domain of white people.
What everyone else thinks is, *I* don’t want to be a slave, but it’s okay for me to keep slaves.
Once these people have power, they absolutely will oppress you.
Black rock has 10 trillion. Vanguard has 7 trillion. It boggles the mind.
The people who actually run the show have power that dwarfs even that - power to control kings, presidents, etc - power obtained through the activities of operatives like Epstein.
Head over to reddit and you'll see that they have an unlimited capacity for self-delusion.
From your perspective - already unplugged - you see each move as more and more crazy. But from the perspective of a leftist redditor, they justify each move to themselves, become comfortable with it, and then when the next crazy thing happens they say, "well that's not too crazy" and they justify that too.
So many white women will submit to it though. They'll prostrate themselves and say "yes, yes, you're right, I am privileged and I do deserve the violence I'm subjected to - and really, it's white men's fault that these black men are beating me"