3 ms·

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

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.
- wizeman 4y ago
  > 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. WTF. I don't even know what you're talking about. What the hell is /pol/? I learned about the "clown world" term on Twitter. And apparently, its meaning is not even what I thought it was, according to another poster. Sorry for striking down one of your absurd theories once more. > 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” I am not a native English speaker, so sorry for not knowing about all the connotations of how words are used in your country. Whites/white people. It's all the same to me (in my native language, at least). I didn't even know "woke" had such negative connotations, until I went and quoted that from Wikipedia (which is why I clarified that I didn't mean it pejoratively). > poster abandons their position and falls back to “saying stuff they think will ingratiate you to them.” What are you even talking about? How did I abandon my position?! And how the hell am I ingratiating myself to whoever is reading when I clearly criticized and almost certainly pissed off both right-wingers and left-wingers?! Let me say it again so that it's crystal clear to you: 1. Anti-white racism is racism. 2. There are more racist right-wing people than left-wing people, even when excluding the far-right. 3. Anti-black racism is a much more prevalent (and therefore significant) issue than anti-white racism. Believe it or not, I hold all of these opinions at the same time. Mind-blowing, right? I'm sorry that you don't believe that it's possible for someone to have all these opinions or that you think they are "poop" (using your term) or whatever the hell you think. I think you have severe issues, to be honest. And it's clear to me that I've been wasting my time trying to engage and have a constructive conversation with you, so don't expect any more responses from me.
  - braingenious 4y ago
    Postscript: (Still not interacting with wizeman) This poster that has just only learned of the word “woke” according to them but also wants to educate folks about it has a lot to say in other threads! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34415794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34415794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34418890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34418890 The only reason why I’m revisiting this is to point out that they have (as I’ve pointed out) gone through with the natural pivot from misunderstood to persecuted. It’s a very simple playbook that can be followed by anyone. It gets kind of like the fedex arrow once you notice it! The biggest part of this color-by-numbers silliness is the demand at every step that the opponent debates their positions (which involves re-stating them). If a far right person refuses to expand on their position and demands that you explain why they’re wrong, you’re looking at bait! Namaste!

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.

wizeman 4y ago
> 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. WTF. I don't even know what you're talking about. What the hell is /pol/? I learned about the "clown world" term on Twitter. And apparently, its meaning is not even what I thought it was, according to another poster. Sorry for striking down one of your absurd theories once more. > 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” I am not a native English speaker, so sorry for not knowing about all the connotations of how words are used in your country. Whites/white people. It's all the same to me (in my native language, at least). I didn't even know "woke" had such negative connotations, until I went and quoted that from Wikipedia (which is why I clarified that I didn't mean it pejoratively). > poster abandons their position and falls back to “saying stuff they think will ingratiate you to them.” What are you even talking about? How did I abandon my position?! And how the hell am I ingratiating myself to whoever is reading when I clearly criticized and almost certainly pissed off both right-wingers and left-wingers?! Let me say it again so that it's crystal clear to you: 1. Anti-white racism is racism. 2. There are more racist right-wing people than left-wing people, even when excluding the far-right. 3. Anti-black racism is a much more prevalent (and therefore significant) issue than anti-white racism. Believe it or not, I hold all of these opinions at the same time. Mind-blowing, right? I'm sorry that you don't believe that it's possible for someone to have all these opinions or that you think they are "poop" (using your term) or whatever the hell you think. I think you have severe issues, to be honest. And it's clear to me that I've been wasting my time trying to engage and have a constructive conversation with you, so don't expect any more responses from me.
- braingenious 4y ago
  Postscript: (Still not interacting with wizeman) This poster that has just only learned of the word “woke” according to them but also wants to educate folks about it has a lot to say in other threads! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34415794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34415794 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34418890 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34418890 The only reason why I’m revisiting this is to point out that they have (as I’ve pointed out) gone through with the natural pivot from misunderstood to persecuted. It’s a very simple playbook that can be followed by anyone. It gets kind of like the fedex arrow once you notice it! The biggest part of this color-by-numbers silliness is the demand at every step that the opponent debates their positions (which involves re-stating them). If a far right person refuses to expand on their position and demands that you explain why they’re wrong, you’re looking at bait! Namaste!