Liberalism is Dead and Evangelicals Don't Deserve It Anyway

[Traditio]

:chuckle: I've been banned at least 6 times. I didn't come back and complain about it.



Amazing how you think you're the only person in the world who knows how to put words together, but I'll humor you:

Great. You've provided a quote. Without saying the equivalent of "that's offensive" or "I don't like that" or "I disagree," explain to me why it merits censorship.

Because, again, in a liberal society, I don't have to care about your feelings.

Your feelings are your problem, not mine.

 

[Traditio]

[MENTION=5868]chair[/MENTION]

You've asked me a few times how I would attain a white ethnostate. I've given it some thought, and I think that I have a solution that even liberals can't disagree with:

1. Write into the constitution that only CIS straight white, non-Jewish, non SJW people can be citizens of Western countries.

2. Determine who is or is not such a person entirely on the basis of self-identification.

3. Deport all people who are not eligible for citizenship.

You literally cannot argue against this.

What about you, [MENTION=4651]kmoney[/MENTION]?

 

[annabenedetti]

Great. You've provided a quote. Without saying the equivalent of "that's offensive" or "I don't like that" or "I disagree," explain to me why it merits censorship.

Because it's racist by definition.

Just because you don't think your racism is offensive doesn't mean it's not racism.

Because, again, in a liberal society, I don't have to care about your feelings.

Your feelings are your problem, not mine.

:rotfl: This isn't about my feelings. This is about racist posts breaking the rules at a privately-held website - for which the website can, and does, ban at will.

 

[Traditio]

Because it's racist by definition.

What's your point?

What is your argument for censoring racist views?

:rotfl: This isn't about my feelings. This is about racist posts breaking the rules at a privately-held website which can, and does, ban at will.

Gay wedding cakes? Christian bakers?

You and I both know that you don't care about the rights of privately-held businesses. :nono:

 

[Rusha]

:chuckle: I've been banned at least 6 times. I didn't come back and complain about it.

That is because you are an ... adult. Call-outs and whine-fests never end well.

 

[annabenedetti]

What's your point?

It was your point - you're arguing your posts aren't racist. They are.

What is your argument for censoring racist views?

You're up against website rules. That's your cross to bear.

Gay wedding cakes? Christian bakers?

You and I both know that you don't care about the rights of privately-held businesses. :nono:

You and I both know you can't be truly Catholic while holding the racist views you hold. So which is it for you? Church or ethnostate?

From the CCC:

"The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and therights that flow from it: "Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, socialconditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design."

1935 (Gaudium et Spes)

 

[annabenedetti]

That is because you are an ... adult. Call-outs and whine-fests never end well.

More than 6 times, actually - I just realized the 5-pointer I got from Knight doesn't even show up anymore. :chuckle:

Trad's a racist in a cultural/political environment in this country right now that's become pretty hospitable for racism, thanks to Trump and the alt-right. Sad.

 

[Traditio]

It was your point - you're arguing your posts aren't racist. They are.

I never argued that they weren't racist. I argued that they weren't inherently objectionable on liberal grounds. Racist views are not inherently objectionable.

Though, I do wish to point out, while we are at it:

Under at least two definitions of racism, most of the things, if not all of the things, I've said in this thread are NOT racist:

If you hold to the SJW definition of racism as prejudice + institutional power, then my views CAN'T be racist, since I don't have institutional power.

And if you hold to the definition of racism as asserting that the races are somehow inherently different, inherently and biologically arranged in a hierarchical fashion, then, again, nothing that I've said in this thread is racist.

You're up against website rules. That's your cross to bear.

So you don't have an actual argument. Duly noted.

You and I both know you can't be truly Catholic while holding the racist views you hold. So which is it for you? Church or ethnostate?

From the CCC:

"The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and therights that flow from it: "Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, socialconditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design."

1935 (Gaudium et Spes)

Several points:

1. Even if I weren't Catholic, that wouldn't be an argument in favor of censoring my views.

2. I don't disagree with the paragraph that you've cited. I fully assent to the text cited from Gaudium et Spes.

I don't think that it contradicts my ethnostate proposal. All that an hispanic person would have do to remain in the West, under my proposal, is self-identify as a white person.

 

[Traditio]

Trad's a racist in a cultural/political environment in this country right now that's become pretty hospitable for racism, thanks to Trump and the alt-right. Sad.

Trump is the natural reaction to the neoliberal disaster that has been every president after Carter.

And as for racism: Trump and Richard Spencer didn't start it.

The SJWs and intersectional feminists did.

The alt-right is the natural reaction to SJWs and left wing journos and institutions demonizing white people.

There's nothing wrong with being white.

It's OK to be white.

It's precisely because so many people apparently disagree with that statement that Richard Spencer is as popular as he is.

 

[Rusha]

More than 6 times, actually - I just realized the 5-pointer I got from Knight doesn't even show up anymore. :chuckle:

I have had five ... though my last was in August of 2008.

Trad's a racist in a cultural/political environment in this country right now that's become pretty hospitable for racism, thanks to Trump and the alt-right. Sad.

That it is ...

 

[annabenedetti]

I never argued that they weren't racist. I argued that they weren't inherently objectionable on liberal grounds. Racist views are not inherently objectionable.

Racism is objectionable, by definition.

Under at least two definitions of racism, most of the things, if not all of the things, I've said in this thread are NOT racist:

You can't even say yourself that everything you've said can't be defined as racist.

And of course, things you've said are racist. By definition.

Produce a definition that doesn't define racism in a way other than the promotion of superiority of one race over another, or a policy or government that doesn't enforce the superiority of one race over another.

And if you hold to the definition of racism as asserting that the races are somehow inherently different, inherently and biologically arranged in a hierarchical fashion, then, again, nothing that I've said in this thread is racist.

You're delusional, because advocating for an ethnostate and the removal of people who aren't white is exactly that.

So you don't have an actual argument. Duly noted.

You don't have an argument against a private website enforcing the rules. Your deflection is duly noted.

Several points:

1. Even if I weren't Catholic, that wouldn't be an argument in favor of censoring my views.

2. I don't disagree with the paragraph that you've cited. I fully assent to the text cited from Gaudium et Spes.

I don't think that it contradicts my ethnostate proposal. All that an hispanic person would have do to remain in the West, under my proposal, is self-identify as a white person.

But you are Catholic, and Catholic teaching forbids you to hold the views you hold, and you can't hold your racist views while "fully assenting" to Gaudium et Spes. So what is it? God or mammon?

 

[Tambora]

What do you think @Tambora?

You up for some good old fashion racist songs?

I told you already, I'm a Beethoven, Pachelbel, Chopin kinda gal.

 

[annabenedetti]

And as for racism: Trump and Richard Spencer didn't start it.

Nice red herring.

The SJWs and intersectional feminists did.

And it's a twofer!

No. Racism goes all the way back to the colonial days.

The alt-right is the natural reaction to SJWs and left wing journos and institutions demonizing white people.


There's nothing wrong with being white.

It's OK to be white.

Dry your tears. You'll be all right. You're a white boy in Trumpland.

 

[Traditio]

Racism is objectionable, by definition.

No, it's not. Not under liberal presuppositions.

And of course, things you've said are racist. By definition.

Which definition?

Because I'm pretty sure that I don't have institutional power. So on that definition, nothing I say CAN be racist. I can be prejudiced, but not racist.

Produce a definition that doesn't define racism in a way other than the promotion of superiority of one race over another, or a policy or government that doesn't enforce the superiority of one race over another.

In that case, nothing I've said in this thread has been racist.

You're delusional, because advocating for an ethnostate and the removal of people who aren't white is exactly that.

I have not argued for the removal of people who aren't white. I've argued for the removal of people who insist on perpetuating racial tensions.

You don't have an argument against a private website enforcing the rules. Your deflection is duly noted.

It's a dodge, though. You're effectively only saying: "But it's a private website. They can do whatever they want."

To which I have two answers:

1. You don't actually believe that. Thus the reason you refuse to talk about what you think about gay wedding cakes and Christian bakers. You don't actually believe in the rights of private businesses, but for some reason you keep appealing to the rights of private businesses.

Very strange, in my opinion.

2. But even if you were actually libertarian leaning, I would ultimately agree with you that, yes, of course, Knight is perfectly entitled to ban me, as are the other admins.

But that simply doesn't address the question of whether they actually should do so.

Can =/= ought.

But you are Catholic, and Catholic teaching forbids you to hold the views you hold, and you can't hold your racist views while "fully assenting" to Gaudium et Spes. So what is it? God or mammon?

What do you think that I've said that contradicts the paragraph that you've cited?

 

[annabenedetti]

No, it's not. Not under liberal presuppositions.

Why the qualifier?

Which definition?

Because I'm pretty sure that I don't have institutional power. So on that definition, nothing I say CAN be racist. I can be prejudiced, but not racist.

So choose the definition that doesn't reference institutional power, obviously.

In that case, nothing I've said in this thread has been racist.

Because you cherry-picked and qualified. Won't work.

I have not argued for the removal of people who aren't white. I've argued for the removal of people who insist on perpetuating racial tensions.

You have a short memory.

We need a white ethnostate.

The SJWs and the ethnic minorities need to leave.

It's a dodge, though. You're effectively only saying: "But it's a private website. They can do whatever they want."

To which I have two answers:

No, it's not a dodge. It's a fact, which you agree to here:

I would ultimately agree with you that, yes, of course, Knight is perfectly entitled to ban me, as are the other admins.

Yep.

But that simply doesn't address the question of whether they actually should do so.

Can =/= ought.

Doesn't matter.

What do you think that I've said that contradicts the paragraph that you've cited?

Quit with the obfuscation. You already know: Your faith was getting in the way of your racism.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Trump is the natural reaction to the neoliberal disaster that has been every president after Carter.

And as for racism: Trump and Richard Spencer didn't start it.

The SJWs and intersectional feminists did.

The alt-right is the natural reaction to SJWs and left wing journos and institutions demonizing white people.

There's nothing wrong with being white.

It's OK to be white.

It's precisely because so many people apparently disagree with that statement that Richard Spencer is as popular as he is.

Nobody's saying there is anything wrong with being white you precocious, puffed up crank. Honestly, what is it with these loonies who keep trying to justify their lunacy with some imaginary 'white guilt'?!

Hey, you male gits with a full head of hair, hope you feel guilty as anything for being hirsute!

:mmph:

 

[Traditio]

Nobody's saying there is anything wrong with being white you precocious, puffed up crank.

Except they literally are!

Check out the Sargon of Akkad video I posted earlier.

 

[Traditio]

Why the qualifier?

Because "on liberal grounds" is the only relevant criterion for "objectionable." If we remove "on liberal grounds," then anything can be considered objectionable.

You are a SJW? I'm offended. You need to be banned.

You called me a "white boy"? I'm offended. You need to be banned.

You no longer consider yourself a Catholic? I'm offended. You need to be banned.

You don't sympathize with the plight of white people? I'm offended. You need to be banned.

You don't like Metallica? I am offended IN THE EXTREME. You need to be PERMABANNED.

If we remove "on liberal grounds," then "objectionable" boils down to sheer personal preference, and when you say "objectionable" you are simply emoting. You are just saying "BOOOOOO!"

Because you cherry-picked and qualified. Won't work.

At this point "racist" is so over-used and practically meaningless that it's probably a good idea to abandon it anyway.

You have a short memory.

Does anyone have a right to citizenship in a given country, to live in a given area, etc.? Is that a universal, human right of all persons?

Yep.

You can't say "yep," because you don't agree with you. You could only agree with you if you were actually libertarian leaning on the rights of businesses. Given that you aren't, you are quite literally forced to disagree with you.

Doesn't matter.

It certainly does matter, since you were actively celebrating my being censored, not simply noting that I was.

Quit with the obfuscation. You already know: Your faith was getting in the way of your racism.

Nothing that I've said contradicts the paragraph and you know it.

 

[annabenedetti]

Because "on liberal grounds" is the only relevant criterion for "objectionable." If we remove "on liberal grounds," then anything can be considered objectionable.

Try the definition, without using a qualifier. No qualifier is necessary.

I asked you for a definition of racism without your second qualifier of "institutional." Instead of offering a definition, you offered a word salad:

You are a SJW? I'm offended. You need to be banned.

You called me a "white boy"? I'm offended. You need to be banned.

You no longer consider yourself a Catholic? I'm offended. You need to be banned.

You don't sympathize with the plight of white people? I'm offended. You need to be banned.

You don't like Metallica? I am offended IN THE EXTREME. You need to be PERMABANNED.

If we remove "on liberal grounds," then "objectionable" boils down to sheer personal preference, and when you say "objectionable" you are simply emoting. You are just saying "BOOOOOO!"

And then offered another deflection:

At this point "racist" is so over-used and practically meaningless that it's probably a good idea to abandon it anyway.

Next, you pretend you didn't contradict yourself:

Does anyone have a right to citizenship in a given country, to live in a given area, etc.? Is that a universal, human right of all persons?

Did you not deny arguing for the removal of non-whites and then I quoted you doing just that?

You can't say "yep," because you don't agree with you. You could only agree with you if you were actually libertarian leaning on the rights of businesses. Given that you aren't, you are quite literally forced to disagree with you.

I know that if I don't abide with the rules of this forum (or a mod's interpretation of the rules, which comes with the territory), I'll get banned. I know that. I accept that. You don't accept it, , because you have an entitlement mentality.

It certainly does matter, since you were actively celebrating my being censored, not simply noting that I was.

So what?

Nothing that I've said contradicts the paragraph and you know it.

You contradict it entirely. Feel free to show me where you're abiding:

The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: "Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, socialconditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design."

 

[Traditio]

Try the definition, without using a qualifier.

Great. Then most of the things I say are objectionable. Much of the stuff that you say is objectionable.

Virtually everything on this website is objectionable.

Practically everything is objectionable to someone.

I know that if I don't abide with the rules of this forum (or a mod's interpretation of the rules, which comes with the territory), I'll get banned. I know that. I accept that. You don't accept it, , because you have an entitlement mentality.

Do you think that homosexual activists have an entitlement mentality? If you believe so strongly in the rights of private businesses, then please, tell me about how Christian bakers have a right to refuse service to homosexuals.

You won't?

Then you have no argument.

So what?

At that point, we're not having a discussion about the rights of private business owners. You are basically saying: "Yay, I like the fact that people I don't agree with get censored."

You don't understand why this is not a good thing?

You understand why that is highly illiberal?

The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: "Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design."

Again, I grant literally everything you just cited. I would only note that the key words in the above passage are "fundamental rights." It's not evident to me that fundamental rights are at issue in this discussion.