4 ms·

> “The REAL nazis are people that don’t buy into the great replacement theory!” If you are insinuating that this is what I think or what I was trying to convey

> “The REAL nazis are people that don’t buy into the great replacement theory!” If you are insinuating that this is what I think or what I was trying to convey, I can assure you, it's not. I don't believe in the great replacement theory, never have and wouldn't even care if some race (including whites) is being somehow replaced somewhere (or everywhere) due to migration or cultural acceptance of other races or whatever the hell the (conspiracy?) theory is about nowadays. I've met and became friends (even best friends) with people of many different races (yes, including black people) and cultures and I like all of them, no exception. I am willing to admit I may not always recognize racist behavior when I see it, as in some cases it can be hard to see unless you're in the receiving end of it (or even if you are). But you can't gaslight me into thinking that obvious racist behavior is not racist, even if it's presumably being done to supposedly accomplish some kind of moral goal. Many terrorists also have good intentions, that doesn't mean that the means they use to accomplish their goals are acceptable. There are many ways to accomplish the same anti-racist goal without resorting to overt... racism.

braingenious 4y ago
Buddy I’m not falling for your pivot from “innocently quoting wikipedia” to your sudden interest in “the left hates whites” discourse. Nobody is required to rehash /pol/ debates. You gave yourself away with the clown world stuff. Oops!
- wizeman 4y ago
  You are misrepresenting my points. I don't believe the left hates whites. Where did you get that from? When I was referring to the clown world stuff, I was talking about the extreme side of the left (which I'm assuming is where you stand?). It was not a sudden interest either, it was in response to your (apparently misguided) theory that "woke" was an artificially constructed pejorative, rather than a term that was positive but simply became negatively associated due to these extreme cases becoming more common (or at least, more visible) in the past decade. Look, I have just as much criticism about the right (especially the far right, of course) as the left, OK? Including overt racist behavior and narratives. We can definitely talk about that if you want! I was just following the conversation, nothing more.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    For anyone following this, I am no longer interacting with wizeman, and I recommend checking out my previous post (1) about using respectability and decorum as cover for spreading nazi rhetoric. For example, this poster brought up “anti-white racism” from the left unprompted, but is claiming to be just “following” a conversation that they both started and steered. The tactic of claiming to be misunderstood is the first move. Claiming persecution is the next one. This is how you end up with pointless, awful arguments with people with terrible opinions! Don’t touch the poop! 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34422552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34422552
    - wizeman 4y ago
      Here's some more Nazi rhetoric for you: 1. I believe that there are many more racist right-wing people than left-wing people, both in the US and outside, even when excluding the far-right. 2. I believe there is a significant problem with racism in the way black people are treated in the US, especially regarding law enforcement, courts, prisons, etc. As far as I understand, this is not as much of a significant issue with other races (but I am willing to concede I am wrong on that). 3. I believe that there is a lot of unjustified right-wing narratives portraying black people as being more violent. 4. I believe that a lot of the anti-immigration sentiment is also in part due to racism. 5. I believe that another significant issue with racism in the US is the way black people (and also people from other non-white races) are effectively segregated, either due to a significant fraction of them not being able to live in the same places as white people, or simply due to historical reasons. 6. I also believe that the latter is in fact, the single greatest contributor to all racist problems in the US, rather than some other insignificant (manufactured) issues. However, I also believe that this issue is vastly harder to solve in the US than in other countries. Does that sound Nazi to you? It seems like you felt personally attacked by my opinions. As you can see, I can just as easily attack right-wing ideology... and mean it! (See folks, my comments are an example of how not to make friends of any kind... lol).
      - braingenious 4y ago
        Once more for the folks following this, I’m happy to point out a series of red flags as an example of how to spot somebody posting *chan drivel! (I am still not interacting with wizeman) This poster started off with pointing out the importance of the orthodoxy of using the term “woke” in line with the right wing culture warriors. It’s prescriptive that you use the same words they do. When called out, they made the mistake of using dogwhistle phrasing (“clown world“ is very specific to one group) that you don’t really see much outside of /pol/ and its ilk and in threads where those folks bravely venture out to try to leak /pol/ chat to other forums. So now the dogwhistle has been sounded. Poster gets called out. Knowing that they’re losing credibility, there is a panicked attempt to gain support from people that already support this garbage. Poster deploys other, louder and more transparent signal, (apropos of literally nothing) “the left is racist against whites”! Somehow we have teleported from “I’m just sharing a wikipedia link” to “anti-racism is racism” and we are meant to believe with a straight face that that’s the logical next step in this conversation. (As an aside, I almost never hear “whites” outside of a context wherein someone is airing a grievance on behalf of the group that’s otherwise known as “white people”. Another red flag!) This appeal fails. Poster gets called out again. This time they change tack, now it’s a “misunderstood” play. Damage control. Poster gets called out for the obvious “misunderstood” play. Poster doubles down. And again and again. Finally, poster abandons their position and falls back to “saying stuff they think will ingratiate you to them.” This is an extension of the “I’m misunderstood! I just use far right terms while describing far right talking points after hopping into a discussion to enforce adherence to a far-right definition of a common term!” If you want to understand how this stuff degrades communication, just believe your gut.

braingenious 4y ago

Buddy I’m not falling for your pivot from “innocently quoting wikipedia” to your sudden interest in “the left hates whites” discourse. Nobody is required to rehash /pol/ debates. You gave yourself away with the clown world stuff. Oops!

wizeman 4y ago
You are misrepresenting my points. I don't believe the left hates whites. Where did you get that from? When I was referring to the clown world stuff, I was talking about the extreme side of the left (which I'm assuming is where you stand?). It was not a sudden interest either, it was in response to your (apparently misguided) theory that "woke" was an artificially constructed pejorative, rather than a term that was positive but simply became negatively associated due to these extreme cases becoming more common (or at least, more visible) in the past decade. Look, I have just as much criticism about the right (especially the far right, of course) as the left, OK? Including overt racist behavior and narratives. We can definitely talk about that if you want! I was just following the conversation, nothing more.
- braingenious 4y ago
  For anyone following this, I am no longer interacting with wizeman, and I recommend checking out my previous post (1) about using respectability and decorum as cover for spreading nazi rhetoric. For example, this poster brought up “anti-white racism” from the left unprompted, but is claiming to be just “following” a conversation that they both started and steered. The tactic of claiming to be misunderstood is the first move. Claiming persecution is the next one. This is how you end up with pointless, awful arguments with people with terrible opinions! Don’t touch the poop! 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34422552 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34422552
  - wizeman 4y ago
    Here's some more Nazi rhetoric for you: 1. I believe that there are many more racist right-wing people than left-wing people, both in the US and outside, even when excluding the far-right. 2. I believe there is a significant problem with racism in the way black people are treated in the US, especially regarding law enforcement, courts, prisons, etc. As far as I understand, this is not as much of a significant issue with other races (but I am willing to concede I am wrong on that). 3. I believe that there is a lot of unjustified right-wing narratives portraying black people as being more violent. 4. I believe that a lot of the anti-immigration sentiment is also in part due to racism. 5. I believe that another significant issue with racism in the US is the way black people (and also people from other non-white races) are effectively segregated, either due to a significant fraction of them not being able to live in the same places as white people, or simply due to historical reasons. 6. I also believe that the latter is in fact, the single greatest contributor to all racist problems in the US, rather than some other insignificant (manufactured) issues. However, I also believe that this issue is vastly harder to solve in the US than in other countries. Does that sound Nazi to you? It seems like you felt personally attacked by my opinions. As you can see, I can just as easily attack right-wing ideology... and mean it! (See folks, my comments are an example of how not to make friends of any kind... lol).
    - braingenious 4y ago
      Once more for the folks following this, I’m happy to point out a series of red flags as an example of how to spot somebody posting *chan drivel! (I am still not interacting with wizeman) This poster started off with pointing out the importance of the orthodoxy of using the term “woke” in line with the right wing culture warriors. It’s prescriptive that you use the same words they do. When called out, they made the mistake of using dogwhistle phrasing (“clown world“ is very specific to one group) that you don’t really see much outside of /pol/ and its ilk and in threads where those folks bravely venture out to try to leak /pol/ chat to other forums. So now the dogwhistle has been sounded. Poster gets called out. Knowing that they’re losing credibility, there is a panicked attempt to gain support from people that already support this garbage. Poster deploys other, louder and more transparent signal, (apropos of literally nothing) “the left is racist against whites”! Somehow we have teleported from “I’m just sharing a wikipedia link” to “anti-racism is racism” and we are meant to believe with a straight face that that’s the logical next step in this conversation. (As an aside, I almost never hear “whites” outside of a context wherein someone is airing a grievance on behalf of the group that’s otherwise known as “white people”. Another red flag!) This appeal fails. Poster gets called out again. This time they change tack, now it’s a “misunderstood” play. Damage control. Poster gets called out for the obvious “misunderstood” play. Poster doubles down. And again and again. Finally, poster abandons their position and falls back to “saying stuff they think will ingratiate you to them.” This is an extension of the “I’m misunderstood! I just use far right terms while describing far right talking points after hopping into a discussion to enforce adherence to a far-right definition of a common term!” If you want to understand how this stuff degrades communication, just believe your gut.