I’m sure CB will enlighten us with facts he doesn’t believe are true.
- Your first point is meaningless. The exact same argument could be put to you.
- Your “seats of purity” comment is just another empty attempt to take a morally superior position, as part of an ad hominem.
- America is not a place built on the notion of freedom from oppression. Let me guess, you’re going to quote Ezra Pound?
- Your last comment: because it adds nothing to anything that has been discussed.
And there you have it. It looks like the stupidest post you’re going to read all day but it’s not.
The trick is to see the genius behind the idiocy. You can’t be that dumb if you’re not super smart. Literally.
He even uses bullet points. Like I said, all class.
And my response would be that there’d be no one left but the Native Americans. I suppose I’d make out okay if I returned to my ancestral homeland(s), as they’ve really pulled it together over the past century, but I’d be leaving behind much of what I care about.
Really? How so? Aren’t you talking about racial purity? Isn’t that your entire point? Why fuss over words when the words accurately represent the idea?
America was built upon the same ideals in play currently, which are a mix of opportunistic/capitalistic ambition and social justice principles.
- you know full well that you use the word “purity” as a Trojan horse to launch a WS ad hominem attack.
- America was in no way built on the ideals of ‘social justice,’ at least in any current understanding of the term. Slavery, no gay rights, no votes for women, to name just 3, are hardly in line with some kind of ‘social justice’ utopia.
“Built upon the same ideals in play currently.”
The main ‘ideals’ currently in play in the US, to name just a few are:
- massive Government power
- restricting gun rights
- the relentless promotion of ‘gay rights’
- the relentless promotion of abortion as a lifestyle choice
- massive Marxist indoctrination across America via academia and the media
- a never ending desire to become involved in foreign conflicts
These are all in direct contradiction with the ‘ideals’ America was built on.
Poor post, Emily.
More pure genius masquerading as pablum. The nonsensical use of quotations doesn’t hide how smart and articulate he actually is.
How about we talk about white supremacy being a hoax, according to Tucker, and this recent arrest in Ohio?
1 Like
That’s an obvious strawman. You want to bring back the interpretation of 1790, but when Emily talks about the 18th century interpretation of social justice/contract you compare things to a 21st century measuring stick. That’s dishonest. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. By 18th century standards the United States WAS founded on the ideals she mentioned.
Further, many Founding Fathers wanted to outlaw slavery but were stymied by the southern states who refused to ratify a Constitution unless they were permitted to keep the institution. They were deadlocked.
In other words, the country would have never been founded if the concession hadn’t been made. Furthermore the institution was originally scheduled to be killed off after 20 years.
Next, homosexuality was all but unknown at the time. Instances were known but were thought to be extremely rare aberrations - they did not have our modern understanding of science or genetics. That’s a non-starter. You can’t judge a civilization over 200 years ago by our standards today if you want to be consistent, or you’re no better than the liberals who you and marine77 rail about… because they do exactly that and it’s wrong for them to do it.
Same applies to women’s voting rights. Wrong? Yes. But you shouldn’t judge an old civilization by the standards of present day.
These aren’t ideals. They’re practical politics - the state of things. It should be quite obvious that a nation, culture, or philosophy can hold ideals up as their guiding principles and fail to live up to them in reality. It’s happened all across history in every continent.
You of all people should understand the difference between ideals and present reality since you’ve constantly been talking about the supposed “racial homeland” and other ideals you believe should be adhered to, but are currently not.
So, you hold this up as a negative (based on everything else in your list having a negative connotation), but then criticize the lack of gay rights during the founding of the country as evidence that America had no founding ideal of social contract? That’s inconsistent and hypocritical. You can’t have it both ways.
Poor post CB
1 Like
Why are you arguing with someone who doesn’t even believe what he posts?
He’s a genius and a troll. He cannot be defeated in this game of 4d chess.
And here comes the troll…
Says the person who’s gone back and forth with him for hundreds of posts here? Lol.
I’m not arguing with him. I’m pointing out the obvious holes (which he SAYS he wants to be done). It’s up to him to actually see it. He won’t, but that’s neither here nor there
I feel you have intentionally misunderstood the points I have made.
For example, I listed the lack of gay rights in my initial list of evidence to illustrate the lack of a modern day ‘social justice’ slant to America’s founding, not because I had a personal view that that was a negative.
Furthermore, it is entirely fair for me to apply a modern day ‘social justice’ view point to American history, as the term ‘social justice’ is a very recent, Marxist idea. Indeed, that is exactly what Emily was doing - applying a very recent Marxist interpretation to history.
I feel I have been fair in taking that approach, rather than attempting a straw man or skirting around the points she was making.
If you read the exchange between us, you would see that you will only end up where I was.
The fact that there were blacks who could vote in North Carolina in 1790 shows that his white America argument, which used the Naturalization Act of 1790, is wrong. He says Jews are not white and shouldn’t be part of white America but the Act considered Jews white. But that is all a Trojan Horse and irrelevant.
He’s a troll and it’s not neither here nor there. We, I include myself, have allowed him to spread his 8chan incel white nationalist bullshit. Seriously, has he even said anything original? He’s copying and pasting his manifesto.
1 Like
I didn’t say any of those things.
- Where have I said Jews should not be part of America? (Please provide direct quotes)
- Because “blacks could vote in North Carolina in 1790” does not show anything I am saying, is “wrong.”
- Why call me an incel?
- If I was unable to have sexual relationships, why would that be relevant to any posts I have made?
- If I have said nothing original, why have you been incapable of answering any of the dozens of questions I have asked you?
- What ‘manifesto’ am I copying? Please provide a direct reference.
- Why do you respond to posts that I clearly have dominated you in, by writing a following post about an entirely different topic?
I have posted so many times in this thread because:
- I am interested in this topic
- I have (unfortunately) found a way to procrastinate over the last few days in order to avoid doing something else that I don’t really feel like doing.
You post regular personal insults and infer that I am an utter brainless idiot, yet when I post pertinent facts about a range of topics tied under the umbrella of what this thread is about, you literally ignore them. You literally either go straight past them or say oh shut up you racist/incel/fag.
And you know this how? Basically just because it disagrees with your position huh. That was my first direct post to you. Talk about bad faith.
-
Emily isn’t a Marxist, which you’d know if you spent time reading her posts for content instead of looking for ways to feel victimized by objective and rational disagreement.
-
The term “social justice” isn’t inherently Marxist, and did not originate from Marx, no matter what factions currently popularize and use the term in furtherance of a political agenda. The concept is hundreds of years old, and the actual phrase itself appears in the Federalist Papers and is at least more than 200 years old. FYI Marx wasn’t even born until 1800s and didn’t even publish anything until the 1840s. If you want to be originalist in thought you can’t use it as a Marxist term.
-
It doesn’t matter what you “feel” you have been fair in doing. Clearly almost all others in this thread disagree, so “feelings” are irrelevant and you now face the more difficult task of ascertaining what, in reality, is actually happening. That requires some serious critical self-analysis, rather than just “feeling” like you’re in the right.
I said “I feel” because that is my interpretation.
You have no problem with TELLING me what I think, or in saying I am a “troll.”
I’m being polite by using the word “feel” in order to accept it is my interpretation of what you or others are implying in your statements, rather than a fact. You on the other hand are too rude and arrogant to do that.
- I did not call her a Marxist.
- ‘Social justice’ is a modern day, cultural Marxist term. Find me some references to this term from longer than 5 minutes ago.
I already alluded to its present day popularity with certain political factions used for agenda.
As for references to the term older than 5 minutes, surely you’re joking? I already gave you one, the Federalist Papers. There are more but you won’t like them because they don’t accomodate your position that it is a Marxist position
I admire you. On the one hand you’re a genius. On the other, you post some of the dumbest shit on this forum. And that isn’t an easy feat when I’m your competition.
And can someone explain to me what cultural Marxism is? I’m unfamiliar with Karl’s position on gays and transexuals.
I do not believe it can be seriously denied that the term ‘social justice’ is used today in common parlance to relate to the kind of ideas put forward in my earlier reply to Emily.
I believe that if you asked a random 100 people what they thought ‘social justice’ meant, they would all give you the type of comments I did in my post to Emily.
Before we get into it, I don’t need some kind of statistical interpretation essay about asking 100 people at random. You either get my straightforward point or you chose not to.