Since when is being a white supremacist a bad thing?

[_EAllusion]

Hence there is nothing immoral about the wall and strict enforcement Israel implements on its southern border according to Pelosi, EAllusion, or Kevin Graham. But a border wall in the US or Europe is considered immoral.

Feel free to quote me ever defending Isreal's border security practices.

[_EAllusion]

Here's what Ajax18 said:

"We should hate nobody, and having said that, I wish to urge a word of caution, particularly to you young girls. It is sought today in certain quarters to break down all race prejudice, and at the end of the road, which they who urge this see, is intermarriage. That is what it finally comes to. Now, you should hate nobody; you should give to every man and every woman, no matter what the color of his or her skin may be, full civil rights. You should treat them as brothers and sisters, but do not ever let that wicked virus get into your systems that brotherhood either permits or entitles you to mix races which are inconsistent."

That's the way I was taught by my parents and I still feel that way. I remember a teacher asking my little sister if she would marry a negro. She replied she didn't believe in it. He replied that she was a racist. I'm sure most on this forum would agree with the teacher. I still hold that it's up to the individual to choose which race he mixes his seed with. I'm glad the teacher did that. Otherwise I fear she might have fallen into liberalism.

My comment on this is:

He also expresses being glad that his sister was called a racist for opposing interracial marriage, because the experience inoculated her against changing her views.

He's not subtle about being a hardcore racist.

Ajax18 replies:

He's saying he doesn't believe in mixing races himself, however that it's up to the individual to choose.

Thank you. It's too bad EAllusion cannot understand that.

And I reply:

I understand that you are personally opposed to interracial relationships, but do not think it should be made illegal for other people who choose differently. What you don't understand is that position is incredibly racist. Like, it's so text-book racist that there are very few things that could be considered even more racist. It's the kind of in-your-face racism lesser racists point to in order to think they're not racist.

I don't believe in serving black people at my business, but other businesses are free too. See? Not racist. Um, no, that's racist as hell.

Here's to hoping you get your genome mapped and are introduced to how absurdly antiquated your notion of whatever race you think you are is.

viewtopic.php?f=5&t=42567&p=983306l

So no, I do not think Ajax18 should be forced to marry outside his race. I said his belief that interracial marriage is wrong and his desire to see that belief promulgated is racist.

[_Jersey Girl]

Why are you judging me based on the Stormfront site. I renounced those particular views before which obviously didn't persuade any of you. How about you try to keep to what I've written in this particular thread and argue against my point there?

Exactly.

[_EAllusion]

On the topic of this thread, it's bad that there's an open white supremacist in Congress that keeps getting reelected. It's also bad that this has been known about for a while and does not cause his party caucus to do anything about it. And it's really bad that media double standards create a bias that makes this a much smaller deal than fairly inconsequential things.

[_Jersey Girl]

It's called "history". Some of us pay attention to it. You have a history that provides information about you. We get to process that information. You get to agree with that or not. And so here we are.

But forget the past? You're the one admiring old slavers.

No, it's not called "history", Mak . It's called someone from this board online stalked his ass and lobbed what they found onto this board where it remains.

Some years back, a poster online stalked one of our former moderators, posted what they found, and caused a huge scene about it. If that series of posts remains on the board today I sure don't see evidence of it. I can think of multiple such instances where a post or photo was transferred to this board and then removed. I've had people put up stuff about me when I was banned. Those posts no longer appear on the board either.

I'll admit that what I saw was repulsive to me at the time but as I've had time to reflect, I think that what was done to him was wrong. People here don't like him or they disrespect him or both. Someone online stalks him and everyone here just accepts it because why?

Because no one here is stalking the people they agree with so that makes it okay.

Posters are all the time here noting the whataboutism of others. When ajax enters a discussion it suddenly becomes "What about Stormfront?" and that gets a pass. And, to his credit, I've not once seen him return fire.

The hypocrisy is so thick you couldn't cut through it with a jack hammer and a truckload of dynamite. It's sleazy hitting below the belt based on online stalking that no one else is subjected to here and it all to often becomes an intimidation tool with which to dismiss everything that comes out of his keyboard.

Seriously, where tf is the intellectual honesty around here? “F” this underhanded crap.

[_EAllusion]

Looking at the terrestrial forum right now, I see a huge % of the conversations are people posting about what people who are registered posters here have said in other venues. Because that's what normal people do. This is not nor should be it be a hermetically sealed zone where your views shared elsewhere are off-limits to bring up, even when they are specifically relevant to what you are saying here.

The examples you are referring to Jersey Girl involve comments elsewhere exposing a person's in real life information without permission. Regardless of how you feel about that, it's not the same thing.

"Whataboutism" is a cheeky term for tu quoqe fallacy. It's when someone argues that a criticism is invalid because the person making it is a hypocrite. A lot of whataboutism adds an additional layer of false equivalence where the supposed hypocrisy isn't even hypocrisy. It's designed to frustrate and deter criticism.

Saying that a person isn't accurately representing their views isn't "whataboutism" because it takes the form of "What about when you said..." That's not the same thing.

[_Jersey Girl]

The examples you are referring to Jersey Girl involve comments elsewhere exposing a person's in real life information without permission. Regardless of how you feel about that, it's not the same thing.

No they aren't. Would you like a history lesson?

[_EAllusion]

No they aren't. Would you like a history lesson?

No, I would not. On the front page on the terrestrial forum, I count 17 threads that concern discussion of what posters here have said elsewhere. It's the single most popular type of discussion. You want to censor people from being able to provide evidence a person is being disingenuous by artificially cutting off access to evidence. There is no reasonable principle that would allow for blanket censoring what people who post here have said elsewhere.

Ajax is even lying about having disavowed his views on Stormfront, which you can prove with comments he made on Stormfront. But hey, apparently you think saying, "You're lying and I have proof" is "whataboutism."

[_EAllusion]

Also, noting that a person who posts under the moniker "Ajax18" also posts under the moniker "Ajax18" on a public white supremacist message board where he shares a more unvarnished version of the views he expresses here is not "stalking" and it is an insult to what real stalking is to compare the two. Just because his expressed beliefs ought to cause shame, that does not mean it's somehow a intrusive act to note they exist. It's less intrusive than noticing Daniel C. Peterson, a poster here, has a blog.

[_Maksutov]

It's called "history". Some of us pay attention to it. You have a history that provides information about you. We get to process that information. You get to agree with that or not. And so here we are.

But forget the past? You're the one admiring old slavers.

No, it's not called "history", Mak . It's called someone from this board online stalked his ass and lobbed what they found onto this board where it remains.

Some years back, a poster online stalked one of our former moderators, posted what they found, and caused a huge scene about it. If that series of posts remains on the board today I sure don't see evidence of it. I can think of multiple such instances where a post or photo was transferred to this board and then removed. I've had people put up stuff about me when I was banned. Those posts no longer appear on the board either.

I'll admit that what I saw was repulsive to me at the time but as I've had time to reflect, I think that what was done to him was wrong. People here don't like him or they disrespect him or both. Someone online stalks him and everyone here just accepts it because why?

Because no one here is stalking the people they agree with so that makes it okay.

Posters are all the time here noting the whataboutism of others. When ajax enters a discussion it suddenly becomes "What about Stormfront?" and that gets a pass. And, to his credit, I've not once seen him return fire.

The hypocrisy is so thick you couldn't cut through it with a jack hammer and a truckload of dynamite. It's sleazy hitting below the belt based on online stalking that no one else is subjected to here and it all to often becomes an intimidation tool with which to dismiss everything that comes out of his keyboard.

Seriously, where tf is the intellectual honesty around here? ____ this underhanded ____.

We'll have to disagree, Jersey.

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." -- #MayaAngelou

On the subject of excusing racism and false history, I'll risk accusations of hypocrisy.