Richard Spencer Tries To Explain To A Black Journalist Why Slavery Was Good, Fails Miserably

[Hayabusa Rider]

The only person with a vendetta here is yourself, you're the one who can't help but post in any thread I make literally more than me or anybody else. Take a look at any of my P&N threads... you are the most prolific poster in ALL of them. So let's not pretend that I'm somehow persecuting you, lol.

You make excuses for Lee holding and mistreating slaves. You make excuses for Kelly glorifying slaveholders. You make excuses for the prohibition of Marijuana and the associated costs to minorities. You make excuses for the possible extermination of millions of koreans.

Maybe some here can't see through the endless BS you post. Probably most people don't bother to read your extremely long and boring posts, and thus don't bother making judgments.... but I do. I know what a racist POS you really are at heart. It is plain to see from the various idiotic views you espouse on this forum and as much as it might upset you to be called out for your racist BS I will still do it because other people here shouldn't have to be fooled by your endless walls of texts and inane idiotic observations. You have nothing to contribute but your own incompetence, and thus you should leave.

I think we should rate the above rant.

7/10. Fellow members and the thousand pilots called up what say you?

 

[pmv]

I guess the easiest way to solve this strange persons remarks are with a national poll and ask all the black Americans if they would rather be here than in whatever African country their ancestors came from?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, but I have to ask how would that answer anything?

Firstly, as Younge says, the question is what would those countries be like now, if colonialism and slavery had never happened? Asking people here and now whether they would want to be displaced again, as the descendants of displaced people, is irrelevant, as the intervening events have already changed the question.

Secondly, as Younge didn't quite explicitly say, the consequences for later generations are irrelevant to the question of what the effect was for the individuals who were enslaved and bought here. Would you have wanted to have been captured and carted-off to work as a slave? Was it an improvement for their children and grandchildren to have been born into slavery? What difference it made for their great-great-great-great-timesN-grandchildren is an impossible question, because in a sense those people would not exist and some other people would exist instead.

Thirdly, the question 'what would the world have been like if colonialism and slavery had never happened' is impossible to answer definitively, so isn't the real question, "who is suffering/disadvantaged right now, and how can that be changed?"

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, but I have to ask how would that answer anything?

Firstly, as Younge says, the question is what would those countries be like now, if colonialism and slavery had never happened? Asking people here and now whether they would want to be displaced again, as the descendants of displaced people, is irrelevant, as the intervening events have already changed the question.

Secondly, as Younge didn't quite explicitly say, the consequences for later generations are irrelevant to the question of what the effect was for the individuals who were enslaved and bought here. Would you have wanted to have been captured and carted-off to work as a slave? Was it an improvement for their children and grandchildren to have been born into slavery? What difference it made for their great-great-great-great-timesN-grandchildren is an impossible question, because in a sense those people would not exist and some other people would exist instead.

Thirdly, the question 'what would the world have been like if colonialism and slavery had never happened' is impossible to answer definitively, so isn't the real question, "who is suffering/disadvantaged right now, and how can that be changed?"

I was mostly being silly with my comment. I agree with everything you said. It doesnt matter today how the decendants would answer as they were not the ones who were the actual slaves.

 

[interchange]

I disagree. If the vast majority of people call out stupid and hateful comments, then those who quietly harbour such opinions are less likely to think that "the silent majority" is with them, and so are less likely to turn up in polo shirts and wielding tiki torches while fantasizing about the "good old days" when the non-whites "knew their place". If one's friends and family frequently call out hateful and ignorant shit, one is somewhat less likely to join the bigots.

When it's ignored, ignorant and hateful attitudes fester in the dark.

The only vague way that I'd agree with your general opinion here is when people like this idiot get invited on to serious discussion platforms.

It used to be the case that the media would run an exposé from time to time on extremist organisations such as the BNP just as a reminder to anyone who had any doubt that, sure enough, those guys are still racist bigots who idolise Hitler when they think they're safe to.

It seems to me that hate and aggression towards haters are both increasing significantly in our society. So that doesn't fit the data. Which means the data is wrong, other factors drive this correlation, or your premise is flawed.

 

[mikeymikec]

It seems to me that hate and aggression towards haters are both increasing significantly in our society.

I think it's because there are external factors (e.g. ISIS), and politicians using such factors (and directing hate towards foreigners and immigrants) to further their own goals that helped a load of bigots come out of the woodwork to find (what I think was) a dwindling, ageing audience of closet bigots combined with newcomers who are unduly affected by the first two factors (due to say poor education / opportunities / poor parenting).

I don't think that ignorant people saying problematic things should be met with aggression. However I do think that aggression is a perfectly valid response to wilfully ignorant people, so I have no problem with the occasional nazi being punched. Aggression is not a problem in itself but whether it is used in a valid situation. IMO getting angry with someone who has no problem with the subjugation of people is a perfectly ordinary and human thing to do, because such people should be challenged in such a way that allows them to reform and become decent human beings. Civilised societies do not evolve by tolerating the intolerant.

So that doesn't fit the data. Which means the data is wrong, other factors drive this correlation, or your premise is flawed.

I'm not sure what "the data" is that you might be referring to.

 

[interchange]

I think it's because there are external factors (e.g. ISIS), and politicians using such factors (and directing hate towards foreigners and immigrants) to further their own goals that helped a load of bigots come out of the woodwork to find (what I think was) a dwindling, ageing audience of closet bigots combined with newcomers who are unduly affected by the first two factors (due to say poor education / opportunities / poor parenting).

I don't think that ignorant people saying problematic things should be met with aggression. However I do think that aggression is a perfectly valid response to wilfully ignorant people, so I have no problem with the occasional nazi being punched. Aggression is not a problem in itself but whether it is used in a valid situation. IMO getting angry with someone who has no problem with the subjugation of people is a perfectly ordinary and human thing to do, because such people should be challenged in such a way that allows them to reform and become decent human beings. Civilised societies do not evolve by tolerating the intolerant.

Oh, it's a perfectly valid and human response. It has absolute merits for self-preservation (physically and mentally) and increasing the value of your group.

But, come on, do you really think that violence tends to increase reformation?

I'm not sure what "the data" is that you might be referring to.

The data in this case is my sense that hate/aggression toward haters is increasing. I don't have any quantitative evidence.

 

[ch33zw1z]

europeans took part in the rape and pillage of a continent for centuries, and then tell the continents ancestors theyre better off for it.

GFY.

 

[mikeymikec]

Oh, it's a perfectly valid and human response. It has absolute merits for self-preservation (physically and mentally) and increasing the value of your group.

But, come on, do you really think that violence tends to increase reformation?

What do you think, if you do something that irritates someone and they punch you for it, are you likely to do it again?

However I do think that violence used in an ill-judged manner (e.g. not in proportion to the offence) is likely to encourage further violence in opposition, at which point the idea of reformation becomes moot, and even the opposite outcome to what the person who initiated the violence intended might occur.

I suspect that if Richard Spencer got punched every single time he spouted his hateful BS, he'd eventually tire of spouting it. He would probably nurse a victim complex to the end of his days rather than become truly reformed, but IMO that's the best one can practically hope for in his case, and it comes with the plus side of at least one less person spouting hateful BS.

 

[gregoryvg]

What do you think, if you do something that irritates someone and they punch you for it, are you likely to do it again?

What happens when they punch back? Aggression is rarely one sided.

 

[NAC4EV]

I had difficulty with the link provide by the OP.
I found this on YouTube.

 

[Jaskalas]

Are you serious? In the context of this topic, such a question is completely ludicrous. It's like asking Irish people if they would prefer living in Ireland assuming that centuries of history (most notably England stripping Ireland of its assets - to put it mildly - for many generations) could be rolled back. Who knows what Ireland would look like today if the British hadn't fucked it six ways from Sunday. It might be an economic powerhouse, it might be fairly average for a European country, it might have been mired with other issues that compromised its long-term development. Similar things can be said for Africa.

Am I serious, that I'd rather live in America than Africa? Of course I do. Serious does not do it justice. Adamant.
And I'm quite certain almost all the people living on this continent agree. Africa offers little more than disease and war.
What civil institutions over there do you trust to preserve your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

And please do not leave out the context. As a separate subject it'd be understood and widely agreed upon, but people will devolve into festering pustules over a simple fact when it's used in this topic. I can already see some choosing to ignore it and trying to argue the very thing I said myself.

 

[darkswordsman17]

I had difficulty with the link provide by the OP.
I found this on YouTube.

Here's the article by the guy talking about it too. A good read and even better than that crappy blurb from the Salon article I linked earlier (I linked it because it had shown up on my Google News on my phone, and I meant to find the Guardian stuff itself).

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/08/interviewing-richard-spencer-white-supremacist

 

[werepossum]

No clue who is Richard Spencer, but in his defense no one could argue his position without saying ridiculous shit.

 

[werepossum]

Am I serious, that I'd rather live in America than Africa? Of course I do. Serious does not do it justice. Adamant.
And I'm quite certain almost all the people living on this continent agree. Africa offers little more than disease and war.
What civil institutions over there do you trust to preserve your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

And please do not leave out the context. As a separate subject it'd be understood and widely agreed upon, but people will devolve into festering pustules over a simple fact when it's used in this topic. I can already see some choosing to ignore it and trying to argue the very thing I said myself.

I agree completely, but you well know this doesn't mean that slavery was good any more than murdering someone is good if his kid therefore gets a college scholarship or that the rise of Hitler was good because European colonies ultimately got their freedom. Sometimes horrible things have some quite unintended good side effects, and this Spencer dude is apparently using that to try defending the indefensible.

 

[darkswordsman17]

What happens when they punch back? Aggression is rarely one sided.

Well, the problem is you act like they're not typically the ones that instigate the violence. That's the point that these punkass modern white supremacists need to keep in mind, is that, if they want to push violence (they absolutely do, just look at Spencer in that Vice video from Charlottesville where he shows just how much of a fraud he is because he constantly claims to not be a Nazi or claims to not be pushing for violence), they're going to be met with it. Hard. And historically speaking, it has not gone well for them. Sure they get to be little bitchass pieces of shit that abduct isolated persons and torture and/or kill them, but as a movement in modern times, they've resoundingly been met with unmitigated violence (and almost every time, they were the ones that initiated it). Just because society has shown the willingness to not resort to their same methods to deal with them, doesn't mean society won't bitchslap them if they try to push the issue.

 

[interchange]

What do you think, if you do something that irritates someone and they punch you for it, are you likely to do it again?

However I do think that violence used in an ill-judged manner (e.g. not in proportion to the offence) is likely to encourage further violence in opposition, at which point the idea of reformation becomes moot, and even the opposite outcome to what the person who initiated the violence intended might occur.

I suspect that if Richard Spencer got punched every single time he spouted his hateful BS, he'd eventually tire of spouting it. He would probably nurse a victim complex to the end of his days rather than become truly reformed, but IMO that's the best one can practically hope for in his case, and it comes with the plus side of at least one less person spouting hateful BS.

That outcome does not fit with my observations. At best, a behavior is suppressed but an idea is reinforced. Most likely, a behavior is suppressed for a little while but returns again with more conviction. At worst, the person turns to retaliation or anticipatory violence. But maybe that's necessary to eliminate an evil. Keep in mind, the (original) Nazis faced plenty of aggression during their rise to power, but they only got stronger up until the point that they started a war. A war they weren't too far off from winning, and even after their destruction their ideas live on.

Although, sometimes conscientious people say hateful things. If you punch them, they will reform. But I think they'd also reform if you just let them know they were being an asshat and should cut it out.

 

[brandonbull]

I prefer this take:
https://www.salon.com/2017/11/08/br...erview-should-be-a-lesson-for-american-media/

Especially this:


Ding, ding, ding.

I hate how more media tried to ape Vice by being willing to go and talk to pieces of shit like Milo and Spencer, and try to even humanize them. Sure they'd be critical, but that piece (quoting the Mother Jones article) shows how their articles expose their surprise that he's not just a foaming at the mouth moron 100% of the time. Except that he is as long as you actually pay attention to what he says and not how he tries to be eloquent in saying it. Just because he dabs the foam with a fancy kerchief doesn't make him less of a moron. It just makes you a sucker for willing to waste your time trying to get anything but his carefully curated persona, which actually enables him as then he can point to your article going "sure he espoused horrible beliefs and he's been caught giving Nazi salutes and other Nazi-isms - despite claiming to not be a Nazi but perfectly aligning with their ideology, but he's really not that bad, he's a polite gentleman when meeting me".

These guys are nothingburger losers being promoted and used as a symbol for all Trump supporters by the Left and the MSM. Just another way the Libtards bully and coerce people into supporting them. A binary label,Nazi or not a nazi, is created and then the Left delivers the propaganda about "Trump is supported by Nazis and you support Trump therefore you are a Nazi unless you stop supporting Trump and the GOP.".

 

[zinfamous]

Am I serious, that I'd rather live in America than Africa? Of course I do. Serious does not do it justice. Adamant.
And I'm quite certain almost all the people living on this continent agree. Africa offers little more than disease and war.
What civil institutions over there do you trust to preserve your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

And please do not leave out the context. As a separate subject it'd be understood and widely agreed upon, but people will devolve into festering pustules over a simple fact when it's used in this topic. I can already see some choosing to ignore it and trying to argue the very thing I said myself.

Why are you willfully ignoring the actual origins of that war and disease? You do understand that many of the tribes that are killing each other these days have no real grievances, in fact they have no actual identities as their specific tribe outside of being labeled as such by exiting Colonial powers. This is exactly what happened to Africa.

That is not to say that the continent was all peaches and rainbows prior to European destruction and pillaging, but the continent and endemic tribes had existed on their own and sorted themselves out naturally as any sort of tribe would, within their specific ecosystem. You can't look at Africa today, in any way, and imagine honestly what would have been if the continent had not been arbitrarily carved and divided by outsider interests through geographically, anthropologically and epidemiologically ignorant perspectives of how to make a place like Africa work. Africa was working fine for what Africa was; it was the European need to exploit Africa towards its own advantage that fundamentally and without any question, created pretty much all of the strife you see there today.

You're basically asking the ancestors of a people if they prefer to stay in their current developed, relatively safe country vs being returned to the land where their ancestors were murdered, raped, reshaped from their homelands and subjected to new diseases that, after several centuries, happen to continue to be that way because of that continued interference buy hey--what do you mean you don't want to go back? Aren't we still doing you a favor? It's an asinine proposition.

 

[zinfamous]

These guys are nothingburger losers being promoted and used as a symbol for all Trump supporters by the Left and the MSM. Just another way the Libtards bully and coerce people into supporting them. A binary label,Nazi or not a nazi, is created and then the Left delivers the propaganda about "Trump is supported by Nazis and you support Trump therefore you are a Nazi unless you stop supporting Trump and the GOP.".

I have a white noise machine emitting a thrumming monotone rumble that provides more substantive content than anything you post.

 

[mikeymikec]

Am I serious, that I'd rather live in America than Africa? Of course I do. Serious does not do it justice. Adamant.
And I'm quite certain almost all the people living on this continent agree. Africa offers little more than disease and war.
What civil institutions over there do you trust to preserve your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness?

And please do not leave out the context. As a separate subject it'd be understood and widely agreed upon, but people will devolve into festering pustules over a simple fact when it's used in this topic. I can already see some choosing to ignore it and trying to argue the very thing I said myself.

No, you left out the context. Go and re-read my previous response to you and try again if you like.

 

[Jaskalas]

I agree completely, but you well know this doesn't mean that slavery was good any more than...

Than adding peppermint to shit. Yeah, seems I already said that.

 

[J.Wilkins]

europeans took part in the rape and pillage of a continent for centuries, and then tell the continents ancestors theyre better off for it.

GFY.

No they don't, the only place where you have majority racist populations is in Eastern Europe and the US.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No they don't, the only place where you have majority racist populations is in Eastern Europe and the US.

You haven't been to many parts of eastern Asia. Japan? Oh yeah and you can look that up.

 

[ch33zw1z]

No they don't, the only place where you have majority racist populations is in Eastern Europe and the US.

lol, ok brah.

 

[J.Wilkins]

You haven't been to many parts of eastern Asia. Japan? Oh yeah and you can look that up.

Oh I've been there but they don't really care to show much but submissiveness when someone who is above them in the company chain visits.

I can't say I've seen much of it while there but I'm not privvy to locals talking on the matter, if you are and you are saying that they are indeed racist then I'm going to take your word for it since better knowledge is always welcomed.

I always pictured you as somewhat of a native American for some reason, I don't know why. LOL.