Shouldn’t there be a ban on racist threads/posts?

I think Carleas is talking about racial insulting epithets or when people threatens others violently where there is a racial motive. As the owner of the forum those concerns are understandable.

What is a racially insulting epithet? Is that like, if I call you a dirty, midget cracker? Or is epithet something more grandiose? Like, you gotta be a statue in a poise, and then I look at the words beneath, and it says “Merlin: A Giant Piece if White Shit”.

I choose what I read and need to learn, not you!

I admire your passion for learning and educating yourself, but that’s something I did a long long time ago, so now I have the luxury of being very laissez-faire in my intellectual pursuits and learning, so please respect that by ceasing hounding me with your deliberate misinterpretation and representation of myself. Don’t attempt to elevate yourself by putting others down… it isn’t going to make you any smarter, but it will make you look bitter and in a bad light.

With regard to the op: I have always took the same stance as Carleas on this matter, but I would like to see an end to personal attack threads.

Yeah, those are the racially insulting epithets I was talking about.

What about just banning it because it’s boring?

Can we also ban anything that’s defined as “simply disagreeing with a liberal”? Ucc, you’ve gotten so lazy, and I’ve gotten more and more disappointed in your posts. You are literally just a windbag who’s blowing hot air about advocating for the extreme right, and you’ve got yourself convinced that all kinds of normal people are “leftists”. You’ve got to grow out of this stage.

Turd, people don’t die with needles in their arms because they smoke weed. I have never encountered anyone in my life who was so hopelessly misinformed about drugs. You’re afraid of something that doesn’t exist.

Not really. With words there is always the problem that people can just keep repeating lies even if you disprove them, so not only is it not the only way, it is not even the most effective way. The alternative way is declaring war, much more effective, but also more risky and more costly.

As to the OP, since racism is based on reality-acknowledgement and non-racism is based on reality-denial, looks to me like if anything should be banned, it should be non-racism.

A question to the mods/admin - if you are willing to ban somebody for advocating the extinction of a race by means of war (genocide, conquest…), why not also ban people for advocating the extinction of race by means of promoting race-mixing and/or policies which result in high birthrates of one race over another? The end result is the same.

Is genocide somehow more permissible if it is done softly and without violence? Or is soft genocide only permitted when done against a certain race, and when done against certain other races it would be considered immoral?

You’re correct in your assessment but even ignoring something or ignorance has real life consequences. People can only ignore the prevailing reality built upon this world for so long. The end result will still be real life consequences.

Racism against white people (Europeans) is the last acceptable and permitted form of racism institutionally left in western civilization. Leftists have made it tolerable and palatable publicly.

Just put a list of forbidden thoughts in the forum rules sections.

The problem is not advocating the extinction of a race, which is at best a fuzzy abstraction, but the extinction of people according to (one’s judgement of) their race. The end result of depriving thousands or millions of people of certain rights on the basis of their genetic makeup (usually roughly guessed from appearance and a few ancestors) is not the same as allowing people to reproduce with whoever they want to. Forcing people to breed with certain others to “mix their races” would be no more acceptable than doing the same in order to not mix them. Is anyone proposing a law to prevent whites marrying whites?

Doing things without coercion and violence does generally alter the moral quality of actions, yes.

All in all: excellent demonstration of Carleas’s point.

Well … in fact …
:evilfun:

How well does Only_Humean know history?

Even if you convince one white person of having offspring with a person not of their own race, you are already participating in white genocide in the sense that you are taking away people who might have reproduced with their own race, and having them reproduce with another. Which, by the way, also results in the genocide of the other race too.

You may not like it, but the end result (extinction of one or multiple races) is the same, regardless of the means by which you achieve it, whether those means are more obviously violent such as simply killing all people of a race, or less obviously violent, such as putting in place the kind of system which results in higher birthrates of one race over another race and includes indoctrinating people from a young age to be delusional about racial matters as well as propaganda promoting race mixing, and violence - threatening with violence all white people who oppose this kind of system which would exterminate them in the long-term.

ALL systems must necessarily use violence to enforce their order, so to say that the reason you oppose some system X is that it is violent is just hypocritical and a completely invalid argument because whatever your system is, it also necessarily must enforce itself via violence, so evidently it is not violence which is what you have a problem with, here, but something else, some end, some goal which is being accomplished with violence.

EDIT: Relevant: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192306&p=2651520#p2651520

Think of Modern Liberals who push miscegenation and Social-Justice-Warriors as a type of modern ‘Sacrifice’. Thus the Modern Liberal father will sacrifice his daughter(s) to the Liberal Agenda. The ultimate motivation underlying this, however, is “white guilt”. Thus, to protect what remains of “white privilege”, some sacrifices are due to appease the enemies of white people around the world. Thus, when it is time, the white liberals will appeal to their invaders with, “You see, I gave my daughters to the righteous cause! We gave our daughters to your (foreign) men, isn’t it enough?!” However, to an emboldened enemy, what is the expected reaction? Appeasement is a temporary fix. And so, the racial tragedy ensues, but it is no conclusion. Something else must be done.

Broken white families caring for foreigners and foreign blood, as-if it were its own, will have a blowback. If not now then in 50 years. And if not in 50 years then in 100. Because the underlying motivation, not based on any real, strong, true ‘love’ but rather a catharsis (for guilt), and in order to maintain class privilege???

Oh no, there will be a huge blow-back for certain.

When humans (mammals) are left to their own devices, the bonds they form with their own kind, is stronger than any motivation that comes from indoctrination and from an exterior source (a foreign entity attempting to invade your land).

I myself am half-black, so banning my views on race, is in of itself a very racist thing to do.

You can tell the difference between a black and a white child at a very early age. A black child will be spontanously baboonish and like a violent ape to his fellow children. Where as the white child requires a context to the violence, he must organize the violence as a “game”, or “declare” the violence, before he partakes. The white bully must bully with words as well as fists, where as even the black child who is not a bully, uses fist bullying and wrestling as just his go to, standard business.

White civilization more or less brainwashes the blacks to be more pacifist than is in their true nature. Deep down, you know I’m right, but you will hate me because the truth hurts. But you aren’t doing anyone any favors, you don’t really care about black kids in Africa shooting each other with ak47s, just want to hold on to your politically correct delusions because you are a hedonist who only cares about feeling good.

Every open dialogue proves that everyone is equal and calls for the banning of hate speech, racism, etcetera. You don’t want an open dialogue, you and others just want to be ‘free’ to act without consequence, to hate without reason, and have nothing come of it.

You are full of shit.

Both are stupid, but the end result is not nearly the same. A group of people who go on to raise a generation of mixed skin color children is significantly different than the slaughter of those people.

As a scientific term, “extinction” happens at the level of the species and means that all organisms of that species have come to an end. Within a species, the changing expression of physical traits, e.g. a particular skin color, does not represent the same kind of extinction.

Really? Scientists don’t talk about subspecies going extinct, and conservationsts don’t concern themselves with it? Not a trick question, I am unaware.

Sure, subspecies too. Is there a relevant subspecies in question whose members are not surviving to reproduce?