Group pride

There is a lot of hatred in the simple-minded liberal doofus.
But you also have to offer him a target for all that resentment.
And at this stage, he is being taught to hate those other, evil, Whites.

Did the average liberal doofus hate Whites with such intensity 20 years ago?
30 years ago? Of course not. They got worked through the wringer of education and the media complex.
They could have also programmed them to hate on some other races or ideologies.
Plenty of subject matter to highlight among all of them. You just have to know what makes them go emotionally ape-shit.
Tragic.

No, your mom.

No. Your ugly whore mom.

As an egalitarian I am against all dominance wherever it emanates from as the principle is the same regardless of origin or circumstances

…commentable
That’s nice, and you would make a good ally, if only you could focus delivering your signalling de virtue of equality whenever non-Whites demand some special consideration or acknowledgement of their moral superiority.
But I get it, you don’t care about being part of the Black group or any other group, so your focus of concern is on signalling to Whites.

commendable*

Banning pride groups promoting hate and violence is understandable, so if any group is/or is associated with any groups promoting hate and violence then their denial of any social media platform to preach that hate from is warranted.

Again… you can’t blame the migrants for what the Governments have allowed, but asking for secure borders across Europe is warranted due to recent terrorist happenings… minus any racial slurs and threats. Those that misplace their anger lack a certain amount of intelligence.

I thought we… as a planet… had gotten over the whole ‘trying to take over the world’ thing and moved on to more high brow achievements? the ruling classes keeping society infighting whilst they continue to accrue trillions a year is still working on the gullible I see. :open_mouth:

I mean commentable.
And yes it sounds very similar to commendable.
That was intended as well.

All those identity groups I don’t like I call hate groups, although they don’t do anything else than the other identity groups.
Muh hateful supremacy group.

So you prefer your group over other groups, hence why you identify with said group, huh.
Lucky for you, you aren’t a White identity group because then it would be ‘hateful supremacy’.

It’s actually even more sinister.
So you are White and so you identify as White.
Sorry but that’s hateful supremacy.

Why can’t you be a good Whitey and embrace your demise?

I see someone totally missed the point I made.

I don’t ally myself with any group, but they are there for those that do. I am not interested in any group’s message or call to arms. Screw all that and another’s agenda.

Why don’t you consider the possibility that some people are enslaved because that’s the only thing they are worth for? That’s what we already do with animals. Do you think that every enslaver is a retard who does not attempt to judge the worth of other people realistically?

Classes exist to acknowledge the reality of distinction. We aren’t equal. When you abolish classes, anarchy (i.e. division) ensues. Kinda like what we have right now.

Groups aren’t banned because they promote hate and violence, every group by definition promotes hate and violence because in order for it to be maintained it needs to hate and be violent towards anybody who disagrees with its principles.

The state is such a hate promoting, violent group. “minus any racial slurs and threats” This is an example. Some people love their race and want to preserve it. Others, whether of the same race or not, don’t love that race and don’t care about its preservation. The former group will support the kind of principles which preserve its group, the latter will not. Each group must use violence to enforce their principles.

Just because your preferred group might be the status quo group (the state) doesn’t mean they aren’t using violence (police and military) to enforce their will.

I am not signalling to anyone I am simply expressing my opinion

Groups do not by definition promote hatred and violence. To assert such a definition would be unconventional and indicative of a misunderstanding of what’s essential to being a group.

Sure they do. I explained why here in this thread and in another thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=192770

Is worth as rigid as that? What something is worth to you, right now - is that the final worth of the thing? I’d say worth is judged in a particular context. Among a billion other contexts, something is bound to have much more worth. The more complex the thing, the more potential for worth.

If you mean by intrinsic distinction, that’s not the reason why social classes exist. They are perceived and enforced for many reasons: economic, ethnic, medical, by gender, by family, religion, ideology, etc. Classes exist as the product of a particular social order. Social class might correlate with certain behavioral characteristics, but does not guarantee those characteristics, nor does one’s class guarantee one’s potential. This is why people can move between “classes.”

What does that mean - the anarchy we have right now?

AutSider,

Sure, we can get into “philosophical” or “political” discussions of Group Pride. Intertwining both “genes” and “memes”.

But you know me, I am equally as curious to grapple with how your current views about, among other things, “kikes” and “niggers” evolved in sync with the actual life that you lived.

So, as a child being indoctrinated – and we all were – to think about these folks, what were the most important existential factors in your life.

Let’s start there.

Me?

Well, having been born and bred in the belly of the white working class beast, encountering the word “nigger” was practically an everyday occurrence. I was taught basically to hate black folks and basically I did.

Kikes on the other hand was more problematic. Every once and a while I would hear a reference to “the Jews” but I was never really able to fathom the significance of it.

Now, on the other hand, I don’t use epithets like this. And I tend to view those that do as embodying particular political prejudices that one way or another they picked up over the course of having lived through one set of experiences in life rather than another.

On the other hand, prejudice is so deeply engrained in the course of human history, it is hard to believe that “genes” aren’t a factor in there somewhere. There certainly seems to be a biological predisposition to create this category we call “Other”.

Again, it always comes down to the extent to which a particular set of genes and a particular set of memes become intertwined in the context of one particular life out in one particular world.

And only the objectivists of your ilk seem compelled [psychologically] to reduce it all down to “one of us” or “one of them”.

No, you explained your misunderstanding of what “group” conventionally entails.

Regardless of what other things you would add to the definition of a group it is most certainly a collection of organisms, and since organisms are inherently violent and thus hateful, so are groups.

What’s the big point of contention here?

Classes create distinction, they don’t reflect them. Only a retarded would fail to see such.