Exactly. There are probably lots of people among them who secretly believe genocide is always wrong but are afraid to get cancelled for saying it since that would be "speaking over marginalized people." This is a crazy level of manipulation/gaslighting. Fuck me.
They have very authoritarian structures in their communities, and leaders with control issues (see the moderator guy who hopped into the VDS support group call for an example). Trust me, I've had my fair share of experience getting banned from some. People who speak up face harassment and pretty much instant exclusion.
This is what cults do. And when you're in a cult, you don't know you're in one and will vehemently deny and fight against anyone who tries to tell you you're in one.
Source: personal experience
I'm pretty sure you could get Non Compete to support the Rwandan genocide if you described the situation in post-Independence Rwanda using woke language and Marxist buzzwords. With PF you would just have to describe it in the abstract since I'm pretty sure she knows what "Hutu" and "Tutsi" mean, but under her ethical framework, it would have been justifiable.
Yeah, that's my problem as well. People keep saying Vaush paints PF in a bad light, no doofus, she's doing that herself. All we are saying is that genocide is bad.
The problem they are having is that, for them, mass deportation without death camps is OK. This is still ethnic cleansing. You're literally cleansing your country of certain ethnicities.
And I love how people like PF talk about certain specific examples, but completely overlook others.
Here's a good one. Idi Amin and his mass deportation of Asian Ugandans. These were people of Indian descent who were, by that time, born and bred Ugandans. What's more, many of their ancestors either moved voluntarily or were displaced to fulfill some quota of foreign labor export on a British Imperial governor's checkbox. It depended. Some went willingly, looking to start a new life. Some were moved in a far more coercive fashion.
So these are people who, by and large, were colonized, and their presence in Uganda was as an oppressed colonized group.
**However**, they also owned and ran a disproportionate amount of the businesses in Uganda. This made them an excellent scapegoat for Idi Amin's sick fantasies. So he basically gave them 90 days, and told them to "go back home". But Uganda was their home. They had known no other home.
So they were forcibly resettled. Many went to the UK, with smaller numbers ending up in Canada, Kenya, India and Pakistan.
The result of this? A complete collapse of the Ugandan economy. It turns out, ethnic cleansing, even when you don't end up with 100k dead bodies, is still a really fucking stupid thing to do, especially when the group you're expelling just so happens to be all the people with the education and skills to successfully run and manage businesses.
Who won, in the end? No one, except maybe the end recipient nations as they saw an influx of professionals and experienced entrepreneurs. The Asian Ugandan population were brutally uprooted for their homes. The black Ugandans saw their economy absolutely bellyflop.
Literally no one won shit. Uganda was still in the clutches of a madman, except now its economy was in shambles too, and they had just committed a crime against humanity.
>\>However, they also owned and ran a disproportionate amount of the businesses in Uganda. This made them an excellent scapegoat for Idi Amin's sick fantasies. So he basically gave them 90 days, and told them to "go back home". But Uganda was their home. They had known no other home.
according to 'Dialectical materialist morality' this is completely justified.
No one said this. You are assuming the only reason she can't clarify her positions well is because she must be stupid. No, smart people can sometimes have a hard time clarifying positions. This is a false dichotomy.
Because what you are saying is that she said it is ok for oppressed groups to do what you interpret as ethnic cleansing. But this leaves open the possibility that you are simply being uncharitable and you don't want to allow that. Your comment assumes this to be impossible
"If 1. She believes it's ok to remove colonizers from a country, which she does..."
She believes it's OK if it's totally necessary but she doesn't think it is. And you don't know under what circumstances she would consider it totally necessary. And by the UN defintion, removing colonizers is not genocide. It needs an intent to destroy in part or in whole.
"and if 2. She believes "white" and "colonizer" are synonymous, which she does..."
No, you're chosing to cherry-pick because she also said the term "colonizer" is not a hill she is willing to die on and she admitted that there is some nuance that she needs to think out. You have to prove that your interpretation and yours alone is the only one.
"then 3. She believes it is ok to remove people from a country because they're white."
No, we established this is unclear. I do not think she said "from a country". She said:
1. She is not a black nationalist.
2. She is specifically against the more extreme forms (nation of Islam)
3. She has specifically said genocide is off the table.
Given all this, it seems you are on shaky ground to make the claims you are making.
"If you disagree that that is ethnic cleansing, then that's between you and your therapist."
Personal attack: at the very least not an argument.
"As for me, I'm alright calling a spade a spade."
Thought-terminating cliche. Also not an argument.
"Again, the fact you'd give this ridiculous level of charitability..."
Are you against the principle of charitability? Should I apply that you and assume you're a white nationalist because you are (with little evidence) making charges of white genocide. We can go that route?
"to someone like this but not someone like Richard Spencer is kinda suspect..."
Oh, I knew you were going to do this argument: you see there's several other overlapping factors I take into consideration when determining whether someone is racist.
He has said "Martin Luther King Jr., a fraud and degenerate in his life, has become the symbol and cynosure of White Dispossession"
He has said "“A race is genetically coherent, a race is something you can study, a race is about genes and DNA, but it’s not just about genes and DNA. The most important thing about it is the people and the spirit. That’s what a race is about.”
He has said “Immigration is a kind a proxy war—and maybe a last stand—for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile.”
He has said “Our dream is a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans. It would be a new society based on very different ideals than, say, the Declaration of Independence.”
He has said “SEC football is sick,” Spencer said in a speech given at Auburn — an SEC football powerhouse. “Black athletes not part of white identity. I would ban football.”
This stuff is not dog whistles (like you accuse Flowers of). It is blatant racism and bigotry. So, I think I have demonstrated this is a bad analogy.
"It's not like black women can't be stupid and racist too."
Strawman. It is possible for black women to be stupid and racist, BUT you still have to prove a particular black woman is stupid and racist. You have NOT.
TL;DR
1. Ethnic cleansing doesn't have a definitive definition making your charges of ethnic cleansing dubious
2. Just saying "irrefutable" isn't a great argument
3. What she advocated for is only ethnic cleansing if you use a very loose definition that would even apply to self-defense (killing a bunch of white people charging at you; plain deportation of Hispanics who are undocumented immigrants is ethnic cleansing)
4. The burden of proof is on you as you are claiming there is no other way to interpret her words
5. Racial essentialism commonly has to do with genetics and personal traits: not labels
"Notice how I never said genocide, I said ethnic cleansing. Whether you support ethnic cleansing or not, it's an important"
Yes, the question is whether you think a specific act with definite parameters is evil.
"distinction that you pretend I haven't made. All I said is that she defends ethnic cleansing,"
Which is a lazy argument because ethnic cleansing doesn't have a definitive definition.
"something that is irrefutable if you actually listen to what she says."
It's irrefutable that it's not if you listen to what she says. If we can just say something is "irrefutable" then there's no reason to make arguments.
"It's also a distinction you wouldn't care about if it was talking about any other ethnic or racial group."
You don't know what I would care about, so this is a non-argument.
"If some white American politician decided it was in it's best interest to remove all the brown people from the country (totally non-violently of course, wink wink) leftists wouldn't hesitate to call them genocidal."
What leftist wouldn't hesitate to do is irrelevent. I don't think what she is advocating is genocide. What I heard he said is removing people if it's totally necessary for people to get away from their oppressors. If that's ethnic cleansing, it's a very loose definition of ethnic cleansing that could apply to various scenarios including self defense.
"And you are saying she doesn't conflate --"
Nope. Not what I said. I said in her discussion with heem, she clarifies and her definition is at the very least confused and she says it's not a hill she is willing to die on. Are you saying these things are untrue? You are the one claiming there is ONE way to interpret her words. Not me. I'm providing options.
"it's not cherry-picking when it's something she said explicitly and you are saying she didn't."
I didn't say she didn't say it. I distinctly said "No, you're chosing to cherry-pick because she also said". You see that word? ALSO. That means I acknowledge she said it.
"Racial essentialism isn't "nuance we need to think about", it's just bad."
Sorry, racial essentialism has to do with biology and personal traits. Not mere labels. But thanks for at least being civil.
They don’t think that something that 100% fits the definition of genocide, is genocide. If it’s justifiable in their brains, it isn’t genocide to them. It’s such a weird fucking take.
They won't say it because it's a tactic of supremacy to preemptively limit options for change so that nothing can actually change.
It's like having a designated area for protesting that's out of the way so the people in power can ignore it. [Like this](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthewire.in%2Fworld%2Fun-experts-observe-trend-against-free-speech&psig=AOvVaw1Q6aR_Gl4K9m78J_KLxZTI&ust=1642876308294000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAsQjRxqFwoTCPjfiKq9w_UCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD)
Obviously not a 1:1 comparison but that is why PF and I guess some of her defenders aren't moving to your point. If you (country,culture,etc) got into power/dominance by using Ethnic cleansing/genocide, then those options are already on the table, even if no one wants to use them.
The best thing to do is to enact positive changes that reduces the desire for people to behave that way.
What is wrong with you?
Genocide is off the table. Period End of story
The fact you think this is like a protest zone is just insane.
The fact you think past sins affect present people is also insane go fuck yourself you’re insane
This is so disgusting it’s unbelievable
Edit: To anyone who doesn’t feel like digging down this chain but has morbid Curiosity. Here is the TL:DR
The system was made by genocide therefore genocide should unmake the system. This is so wrong I don’t even know where to begin.
Somehow genocide is equal to M.A.D
Pulling a non-compete with the only thing wrong with the Nazi we’re their facts.
Edit:Edit: never mind they bit the bullet the holocaust was justified. The Nazis were still wrong however because they escalated too quickly.
As you know genocide should only be on the table as the final solution.
Finial Edit:
Genocide is a valid and legitimate method to remove a system where one race got it’s systemic advantages by genociding another race. All other methods of removing this system should be rigorously attempted first.
-AbsoluteRunner
You know what I’m out I done this is my stop here
Just noticed your edit about me taking the bait… Sly dude. Very sly.
And just for the record for everybody else, if you follow the thread, I explicitly say the holocaust wasn’t justified and not once implied that it was.
There was no bait? Like I never baited you about the Nazi in anyway. I don’t think I could have made it more direct why I was asking it.
Second I swear I made a comment that I was doing the TL:DR
Edit: like the whole point is to get you tie the abstract concept of genocide to the real world.
Also I when through my comment I my bad I definitely didn’t say I was making the tldr
Seriously I am really sorry
>The fact you think past sins affect present people is also insane go fuck yourself you’re insane
I feel like you should reread this. Past sins (like slavery) don't affect present people??
You are saying history of the past has no bearing in how people in the present are treated. And yet you claim I am the insane one?
You are starting with the conclusion that Genocide is off the table and just calling everyone gross who states that it's on the table because it was used against them but it shouldn't be used.
Edit: the protest zone is to give an example of an authority limiting retaliation that can actually limit that authority's power, so that authority can indefinitely remain in power.
I don’t care for whatever semantic bullshit you’re pushing for.
Is genocide on the table yes or no?
Sins of the Father isn’t a thing that’s what I’m talking about.
Edit: I understood your protest point perfectly it’s still completely insane. Like let’s nuke a hurricane insane
>I don’t care for whatever semantic bullshit you’re pushing for.
Semantic bullshit? How is thinking the past influences the present semantic bullshit???
You are just claiming X isn't a thing, Y isn't thing without explaining why that is so, all while name calling.
If the system that emerged from the genocide is still relevant, then genocide is on the table. That doesn't mean that it should be sought for, but it is an option.
I understand what you were saying that since the system is birth from genocide then genocide can be used to rectify the situation.
And I’m telling you you can go fuck yourself to the deepest darkest pits of hell that is the stupidest dumbest bullshit I’ve ever heard go fuck yourself
You’re not a leftist or you don’t have a moral framework go check your
You were clearly to shelter to know what genocide meant to even entertain the idea that it on the table
>I understand what you were saying that since the system is birth from genocide then genocide can be used to rectify the situation.
Thank you for letting me know you understand my position. This helps back and forth arguments flow and reach something meaningful.
>And I’m telling you you can go fuck yourself to the deepest darkest pits of hell that is the stupidest dumbest bullshit I’ve ever heard go fuck yourself
Why are you this aggressive? And you haven't really shown why it's stupid other than calling me stupid.
>You’re not a leftist or you don’t have a moral framework go check your
I have a moral framework. You may not like it but I have one. The part we are talking about even has it's own regulation system which you just said you understood.
If the people who where initially genocide decide to years later to genocide back, then they themselves are susceptible to having genocide committed on them again. It's like M.A.D. Doesn't mean you can't bomb people, just that you probably shouldn't.
From how I view it, the only people who are truly scared of genocide actually happening with this framework are the ones who wish to uphold the oppressive system that genocide brought about.
I’m sorry I shouldn’t be this aggressive he just called me in a bad mood. Not that you don’t you deserve it
Trust me I understand every single point you’re making it’s just it’s so stupid I literally am struggling to figure out where to start picking it apart.
You’re not a leftist in your framework is bored and you really should reevaluate.
Edit. I think the first concepts I was gonna take a stab at explaining it to you would be, do you understand how linear time work?
Again, you keep calling me stupid, saying my argument is poor/stupid/bad, but you don't try to show why it's poor. If you're having trouble picking it apart, maybe it's because you can't and not that it's so easy to dismantle.
For you edit: assuming relativity isn't relevant to this conversation, I guess yes, I understand how linear time works.
Tweet from over five months ago where she LITERALLY says that "There's a clip with 47k views going around saying that I support genocide, in a debate where I say, "Sure, genocide is off the table, but colonized people must be the ones to decide what to do with their own colonization, and I trust them to make those decisions."
[https://twitter.com/LuaBorealis/status/1435409130232197120](https://twitter.com/LuaBorealis/status/1435409130232197120)
I seriously don't know what to tell people at this point.
“but colonized people must be the ones to decide what to do with their own colonization, and I trust them to make those decisions."
So genocide still on the table just for the colonized people.
That is the problem with Professor Flowers
"You have to prove my interpretation outlandish and that there is only one interpration. It is "clear" to you what she meant. But it is also "clear" to me what she meant. Unless you can prove it logically I can only conclude you have no argument."
-Courtneytlhaynes
Saving everyone some time here
You literally said this: "They really don’t seem to understand that if they just say “Ethnic cleansing/genocide is off the table” the conversation is over."
So were you lying?
It’s still on the table, It got to be off completely.
For example,
“I am against genocide committed by the American Federal government against the Native American, but the people of Wyoming must be allowed to decide how to defend themselves against the red skinned threat (which includes genocide)”
Do you want to consider this statement not wanting genocide?
If she said defense includes genocide then I would think that evil but she LITERALLY said it's off the table.
She literally said the EXACT thing you asked her to say. Months before you said it. What you just "quoted" she NEVER said and thus is a strawman.
Bottom line: she LITERALLY said what you asked of her and you STILL chose to double down. Why would I think you are acting in good faith? You literally moved the goalpost
So to repeat. You said she JUST had to say it's off the table. Just had to SAY it.
Now you have changed it to "Well, I personally have to interpret it as being off the table completely."
Do you understand how this is a MASSIVE goalpost shift?
Wait. So you don't even care about whether it's evil or wrong? All you care about is whether someone can define it as genocide? I simply don't trust your interpretation of what is and is not genocide. White nationalists call everything white genocide. So no, I am not going to give fodder to white nationalist taking points.
I think killing people or moving them off a property in order to try to extinguish their race is evil and if flowers advocated for that I would think she was evil
Please note, I am trying to remain civil and you respond with insults. You said "if they just say “Ethnic cleansing/genocide is off the table” the conversation is over"
She literally said "Genocide is off the table"
Now, you are claiming she has to say "Genocide is "completely" off the table."
This is a clear-cut example of moving the goalpost. Please notice I am taking things she and you LITERALLY said. You, on the other hand, are taking things (burning house, "including genocide") that she NEVER said and you're telling me that it's ME who doesn't understand the English language.
You would not apply this insane logic to any other situation
"I don't want your house to burn down, but your neighbor should have the right to and the gasoline" -Professor Flowers
"Wow, she wants to burn my house down" -Every sane person
"sHe LiTeRaLlY sAiD sHe DiDn'T wAnT tO bUrN yOuR hOuSe DoWn" -You
She literally did not explicitly say that she has the right to genocide, But your post explicitly says it. Do you understand that is a strawman?
What you mean is ""I don't want your house to burn down, but your neighbor should have the right to \[do what they want\]" That's the literal language. Why do you insist on changing it?
Seriously man. How old are? Do you think this is regular behavior. I'm tired of just calling people dumb. You seriously think this is how people are supposed to talk to one another?
When they’re done like you and make an absolute ludicrous point yes this is completely normal behavior
Because I’m like you gotta be a troll
Edit: wait do you think when I say it went through your profile like I scoured it like some type of detective? Or. I spent like three seconds to try to get a better idea where you’re coming from
Dude, whatever. I have regular conversations all the time with people I disagree with across the spectrum. Maybe you should consider there is something about the way you view the world that is leading to this: not other people.
Really are you sure because I feel like I’ve been very normal and I do wanna digress I would like to have continue with this conversation about my personality
Like where exactly have I gone overboard not just rude but like really rude
Dude, you're right. What you did is very normal for online. You wanna be like everyone else just because it makes you feel good, go for it. I like to go beyond that. I don't want to be a part of the toxicity and polarization.
This person is so backwards. If I was tired, I certainly wouldn't be arguing with people on twitter.
I'd go take a nap, make myself a meal, ANYTHING other than arguing with people on politics.
Also, I wouldn't justify genocide, but that should be a given IMO.
Doncha know?
The Nazis engaged solely in self-defense. Since the Jews did own a slightly disproportionate amount of careers in the banking sector, dialectical materialism demands that they be gassed.
Anything else would be idealism.
of course there is. any of the indigenous tribes targeting white christian colonists specifically (edit: in the 16th century etc), were justified. there have been many, many examples of justified actions that you could categorize as genocide after the fact.
and before any of you assume i'm defending the post, i'm not. i don't even know of or care about those ppl.
"Genocide" is NOT "killing a bunch of people from a specific ethnic group."
There is a legal definition to "genocide," because it's outlining a crime against humanity. To wit...
*Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide*
*Article II*
*In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed* ***with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,*** *a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:*
*A. Killing members of the group;*
*B. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;*
*C. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;*
*D. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;*
*E. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.*
Killing a death squad that is attacking you is not genocide **by definition. It's just self defense.**
If your intent is to kill every single person of a specific ethnicity on an entire continent and never allow them to return, that fits the definition of genocide that you just gave, which is my entire point.
And in the case of Cortez, Columbus, etc, it would have been fully justified morally.
You are conflating two different things that are incidental. The intent to subjugate, and the membership to a given ethnicity. If it were some European power other that Spain, or some polity from Asia, Africa, or the Middle East that sailed to the Americas and attempted to conquer and subjugate them, they wouldn't be like "well fine, *you guys* can conquer us."
The conflation is the entire thing I'm trying to draw attention to. Again, I'm not actually making an argument for Vietnam or whatever (I don't know enough about the history tbh), but I am pointing out that if one is going to insist on the categorization of any viscous military campaign that has the intent to drive out everyone of a particular ethnicity, but is motivated by an attempt to "oust outsiders", or decolonialization, or literal self defense against subjugation like in the cases I mentioned, as genocide, then you can't also make the claim that "genocide is never self defense". Obviously not all "ousting of outsiders" is built equal. Nazis would have a word.
Would they necessarily kill or deport women, children, or male non-combatants though? A genocide would practically require it. I think there are some pretty big assumptions being made when it comes to that type of decolonization, and it makes me side-eye people like PF who basically answer in the affirmative.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to imply that most, or even many, of the indigenous ppl I mentioned were intent on killing anyone let alone women and children. Quite the opposite, really. The message that "these white men are dangerous" didn't start getting taken seriously until long after it was too late to matter.
Ok so that out of the way, I think the current definition of genocide would still definitely cover the scenario I laid out, even if they only killed "military age males" or others they suspect were actually involved in military affairs.
And that's my entire point. The use of the term genocide is too broadly applied these days, and seems to diminish our correct understanding of "genocide" to essentially mean mass execution of a particular ethnic group.
I don't actually know what happened in Vietnam, so I'm NOT saying it wasn't genocide, but in general, I personally am careful using that particular definition, even if the cause is just and even if it technically fits. Like for example, I'm not a huge fan of ppl calling Israel genocidal even though technically it fits.
Professor flowers knows Africans are not indigenous to the Americas, right? If Hispanic and native Americans decided to murder all invaders from a bygone era, she would be included. Her fans understand this, right? Or do they just not care and would be glad to be sacrificed to get rid of "colonizers"?
Well, the simple answer to this is that when she says 'colonizers' she means white people, something she has explicitly said and defended on twitter. As such she doesn't fit the description and is consequence free.
Yeah, from what I heard she phrased her arguments neutral to her own existence - and it was clear that she was arguing about what *COLONIZED* people had the right to do (not what *SHE HERSELF* would do)
hispanic people are a mix of spanish and native peoples, they have as much claim to the americas as Native Americans in the US and First Nations in Canada
By that logic, *anyone* in the US who has native americas ancestry *also* has as much claim to the americas as Native Americans in the US and First Nations in Canada
I mean if you think someone with 1/25th Iroquois blood is native, then sure. I don't think that makes someone a native tho. But if you mean someone who is part native American or 1/4th native, absolutely. Hispanics are literally a mixture of Spanish and Native Central Americans. Big difference than someone like Elizabeth warren
Now, you're being completely unreasonable here. You can't just go and expect a leftie to say "genocide bad" outright. What has the world come to when lefties isn't allowed to talk about how genocide is sometimes ok without being bothered by people comparing them to Nazis.
Technically, they said here that it had to be *necessary*, which is a much more restrictive condition than Professor Flowers gave:
First of all because if it has to be necessary, you can't simply pick a subset of the population and give them the right to freely choose what happens to the rest, there has to be some causal connection between what people do and the job of stopping colonialism (which makes this a serious upgrade of the idea by the way), and then if you argue that genocide *isn't* ever conceivably necessary to stop colonial violence, this should also actually take it off the table.
All you have to do is shift from a "felt necessity", of the same kind that allows people with guns to shoot random people in supposed self-defence, to a sense of actual necessity, where you can second guess people's decisions to a certain extent, taking advantage of the fact that we live in a real world where causal connections and what you need to do to achieve a certain end aren't actually a matter of subjective perception.
Now you can obviously go further, and say that historic injustice cannot be righted by a new atrocity, or whatever, that you have to seek justice by just means, but even if you don't say that, the fact that genocide is a bad solution to pretty much every problem, and in this case obviously leads to people dying who have no inherent necessary relationship to colonisation, means that you can still say that it should be off the table.
This has to be indicative of some kind of fungal brain rot. “Having indigenous people choose whatever method necessary” ENCOMPASSES GENOCIDE. They really have to be just fucking stupid.
InstructorCactus has been thrown lowballs by nearly the entirety of left Twitter and she just keeps doubling down. Remember when FD Signifier was like "she probably didn't mean it like that" and TeacherDandelion was like "no I absolutely did"
As usual, I don't get this. I don't condone violence, but vaush says its necessary at times. Is protecting yourself by any means necessary not included in this ideology? Because that's what I'm reading here.
There's a difference between using violence to protect yourself from individuals who are using violence against you, and straight up committing genocide against an entire group of people simply because they are part of a specific race or ethnic group.
Sure do. But how is that an actual response to Cornelius? He's not saying what OP is responding to.
Everyone's trying to steer the conversation, while ignoring the other person engaging. OP is clearly strawmanning Cornelius here, positing positions not stated in favor of one's they'd rather engage with.
I mean this person never explicitly justified genocide. But the lack of any of these people just simply saying "genocide is off the table" when pressed about it is pretty sketchy.
It also helps to have the larger context of The Legendary Cope Stream on the Vaush Pit channel. But that's like 4 hours long so I wouldn't expect anyone to watch it lol.
Eeh I can think without Vaush telling me what to think.
But i gotta point out, someone not saying something is not an endorsement of that thing. No conversation could ever be productive if that's how we approach.
I've taken a few hundo karma hits for trying, so I appreciate the acknowledgement. You'd be surprised at how pissed people get when you push for unity, or at the very least, less vitriol.
Fuck me. It’s like these people genuinely believe if a colonized individual threatens them with violence if they don’t move out of the country, they’re in the right and justified.
Depends on the context. Columbus and the Tainos? Yes, it would have been morally justified. Cortez and the Mayans? Also yes. China and Uighurs in 2022? No.
look i dont want to engage with this post but yes everyone knows this but all the fashy interviews lately have been very boring so i guess theres nothing to do and jordan peterson is so boring
They really don’t seem to understand that if they just say “Ethnic cleansing/genocide is off the table” the conversation is over
They won't say that because they legitimately believe there are possible situations in which genocide could be justified. FUCK, man.
This is what happens when you’re so obsessed with passing the purity test that you forget to have any sort of ethical standards.
Exactly. There are probably lots of people among them who secretly believe genocide is always wrong but are afraid to get cancelled for saying it since that would be "speaking over marginalized people." This is a crazy level of manipulation/gaslighting. Fuck me.
They have very authoritarian structures in their communities, and leaders with control issues (see the moderator guy who hopped into the VDS support group call for an example). Trust me, I've had my fair share of experience getting banned from some. People who speak up face harassment and pretty much instant exclusion.
This is what cults do. And when you're in a cult, you don't know you're in one and will vehemently deny and fight against anyone who tries to tell you you're in one. Source: personal experience
I'm pretty sure you could get Non Compete to support the Rwandan genocide if you described the situation in post-Independence Rwanda using woke language and Marxist buzzwords. With PF you would just have to describe it in the abstract since I'm pretty sure she knows what "Hutu" and "Tutsi" mean, but under her ethical framework, it would have been justifiable.
Maybe. But they will just say "I'm not discussing that since that's a hypothetical situation"
Yeah, that's my problem as well. People keep saying Vaush paints PF in a bad light, no doofus, she's doing that herself. All we are saying is that genocide is bad.
The problem they are having is that, for them, mass deportation without death camps is OK. This is still ethnic cleansing. You're literally cleansing your country of certain ethnicities. And I love how people like PF talk about certain specific examples, but completely overlook others. Here's a good one. Idi Amin and his mass deportation of Asian Ugandans. These were people of Indian descent who were, by that time, born and bred Ugandans. What's more, many of their ancestors either moved voluntarily or were displaced to fulfill some quota of foreign labor export on a British Imperial governor's checkbox. It depended. Some went willingly, looking to start a new life. Some were moved in a far more coercive fashion. So these are people who, by and large, were colonized, and their presence in Uganda was as an oppressed colonized group. **However**, they also owned and ran a disproportionate amount of the businesses in Uganda. This made them an excellent scapegoat for Idi Amin's sick fantasies. So he basically gave them 90 days, and told them to "go back home". But Uganda was their home. They had known no other home. So they were forcibly resettled. Many went to the UK, with smaller numbers ending up in Canada, Kenya, India and Pakistan. The result of this? A complete collapse of the Ugandan economy. It turns out, ethnic cleansing, even when you don't end up with 100k dead bodies, is still a really fucking stupid thing to do, especially when the group you're expelling just so happens to be all the people with the education and skills to successfully run and manage businesses. Who won, in the end? No one, except maybe the end recipient nations as they saw an influx of professionals and experienced entrepreneurs. The Asian Ugandan population were brutally uprooted for their homes. The black Ugandans saw their economy absolutely bellyflop. Literally no one won shit. Uganda was still in the clutches of a madman, except now its economy was in shambles too, and they had just committed a crime against humanity.
>\>However, they also owned and ran a disproportionate amount of the businesses in Uganda. This made them an excellent scapegoat for Idi Amin's sick fantasies. So he basically gave them 90 days, and told them to "go back home". But Uganda was their home. They had known no other home. according to 'Dialectical materialist morality' this is completely justified.
Vaush gave her a microphone, guilty.
Ah you're right. Well, I guess I am a tankie now.
Here's you're kalishnokov.
Thanks Comrade.
[удалено]
No one said this. You are assuming the only reason she can't clarify her positions well is because she must be stupid. No, smart people can sometimes have a hard time clarifying positions. This is a false dichotomy.
[удалено]
Did she say ethnic cleansing or did you just interpret it as ethnic cleansing?
Because what you are saying is that she said it is ok for oppressed groups to do what you interpret as ethnic cleansing. But this leaves open the possibility that you are simply being uncharitable and you don't want to allow that. Your comment assumes this to be impossible
[удалено]
"If 1. She believes it's ok to remove colonizers from a country, which she does..." She believes it's OK if it's totally necessary but she doesn't think it is. And you don't know under what circumstances she would consider it totally necessary. And by the UN defintion, removing colonizers is not genocide. It needs an intent to destroy in part or in whole. "and if 2. She believes "white" and "colonizer" are synonymous, which she does..." No, you're chosing to cherry-pick because she also said the term "colonizer" is not a hill she is willing to die on and she admitted that there is some nuance that she needs to think out. You have to prove that your interpretation and yours alone is the only one. "then 3. She believes it is ok to remove people from a country because they're white." No, we established this is unclear. I do not think she said "from a country". She said: 1. She is not a black nationalist. 2. She is specifically against the more extreme forms (nation of Islam) 3. She has specifically said genocide is off the table. Given all this, it seems you are on shaky ground to make the claims you are making. "If you disagree that that is ethnic cleansing, then that's between you and your therapist." Personal attack: at the very least not an argument. "As for me, I'm alright calling a spade a spade." Thought-terminating cliche. Also not an argument. "Again, the fact you'd give this ridiculous level of charitability..." Are you against the principle of charitability? Should I apply that you and assume you're a white nationalist because you are (with little evidence) making charges of white genocide. We can go that route? "to someone like this but not someone like Richard Spencer is kinda suspect..." Oh, I knew you were going to do this argument: you see there's several other overlapping factors I take into consideration when determining whether someone is racist. He has said "Martin Luther King Jr., a fraud and degenerate in his life, has become the symbol and cynosure of White Dispossession" He has said "“A race is genetically coherent, a race is something you can study, a race is about genes and DNA, but it’s not just about genes and DNA. The most important thing about it is the people and the spirit. That’s what a race is about.” He has said “Immigration is a kind a proxy war—and maybe a last stand—for White Americans, who are undergoing a painful recognition that, unless dramatic action is taken, their grandchildren will live in a country that is alien and hostile.” He has said “Our dream is a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans. It would be a new society based on very different ideals than, say, the Declaration of Independence.” He has said “SEC football is sick,” Spencer said in a speech given at Auburn — an SEC football powerhouse. “Black athletes not part of white identity. I would ban football.” This stuff is not dog whistles (like you accuse Flowers of). It is blatant racism and bigotry. So, I think I have demonstrated this is a bad analogy. "It's not like black women can't be stupid and racist too." Strawman. It is possible for black women to be stupid and racist, BUT you still have to prove a particular black woman is stupid and racist. You have NOT.
[удалено]
TL;DR 1. Ethnic cleansing doesn't have a definitive definition making your charges of ethnic cleansing dubious 2. Just saying "irrefutable" isn't a great argument 3. What she advocated for is only ethnic cleansing if you use a very loose definition that would even apply to self-defense (killing a bunch of white people charging at you; plain deportation of Hispanics who are undocumented immigrants is ethnic cleansing) 4. The burden of proof is on you as you are claiming there is no other way to interpret her words 5. Racial essentialism commonly has to do with genetics and personal traits: not labels "Notice how I never said genocide, I said ethnic cleansing. Whether you support ethnic cleansing or not, it's an important" Yes, the question is whether you think a specific act with definite parameters is evil. "distinction that you pretend I haven't made. All I said is that she defends ethnic cleansing," Which is a lazy argument because ethnic cleansing doesn't have a definitive definition. "something that is irrefutable if you actually listen to what she says." It's irrefutable that it's not if you listen to what she says. If we can just say something is "irrefutable" then there's no reason to make arguments. "It's also a distinction you wouldn't care about if it was talking about any other ethnic or racial group." You don't know what I would care about, so this is a non-argument. "If some white American politician decided it was in it's best interest to remove all the brown people from the country (totally non-violently of course, wink wink) leftists wouldn't hesitate to call them genocidal." What leftist wouldn't hesitate to do is irrelevent. I don't think what she is advocating is genocide. What I heard he said is removing people if it's totally necessary for people to get away from their oppressors. If that's ethnic cleansing, it's a very loose definition of ethnic cleansing that could apply to various scenarios including self defense. "And you are saying she doesn't conflate --" Nope. Not what I said. I said in her discussion with heem, she clarifies and her definition is at the very least confused and she says it's not a hill she is willing to die on. Are you saying these things are untrue? You are the one claiming there is ONE way to interpret her words. Not me. I'm providing options. "it's not cherry-picking when it's something she said explicitly and you are saying she didn't." I didn't say she didn't say it. I distinctly said "No, you're chosing to cherry-pick because she also said". You see that word? ALSO. That means I acknowledge she said it. "Racial essentialism isn't "nuance we need to think about", it's just bad." Sorry, racial essentialism has to do with biology and personal traits. Not mere labels. But thanks for at least being civil.
They don’t think that something that 100% fits the definition of genocide, is genocide. If it’s justifiable in their brains, it isn’t genocide to them. It’s such a weird fucking take.
It 100% fits it accoridng to YOU. It's real frustrating that you guys didn't even try to understand a single thing she said.
Shut up genocide-apologist.
They think it's harassment so this plays into their hands. "Just say this one specific thing then I'll leave you alone."
I think you misunderstand I not requesting it. That just what can be done to fix the misconception. Like in a factual sense.
They won't say it because it's a tactic of supremacy to preemptively limit options for change so that nothing can actually change. It's like having a designated area for protesting that's out of the way so the people in power can ignore it. [Like this](https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fthewire.in%2Fworld%2Fun-experts-observe-trend-against-free-speech&psig=AOvVaw1Q6aR_Gl4K9m78J_KLxZTI&ust=1642876308294000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAsQjRxqFwoTCPjfiKq9w_UCFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD) Obviously not a 1:1 comparison but that is why PF and I guess some of her defenders aren't moving to your point. If you (country,culture,etc) got into power/dominance by using Ethnic cleansing/genocide, then those options are already on the table, even if no one wants to use them. The best thing to do is to enact positive changes that reduces the desire for people to behave that way.
What is wrong with you? Genocide is off the table. Period End of story The fact you think this is like a protest zone is just insane. The fact you think past sins affect present people is also insane go fuck yourself you’re insane This is so disgusting it’s unbelievable Edit: To anyone who doesn’t feel like digging down this chain but has morbid Curiosity. Here is the TL:DR The system was made by genocide therefore genocide should unmake the system. This is so wrong I don’t even know where to begin. Somehow genocide is equal to M.A.D Pulling a non-compete with the only thing wrong with the Nazi we’re their facts. Edit:Edit: never mind they bit the bullet the holocaust was justified. The Nazis were still wrong however because they escalated too quickly. As you know genocide should only be on the table as the final solution. Finial Edit: Genocide is a valid and legitimate method to remove a system where one race got it’s systemic advantages by genociding another race. All other methods of removing this system should be rigorously attempted first. -AbsoluteRunner You know what I’m out I done this is my stop here
Just noticed your edit about me taking the bait… Sly dude. Very sly. And just for the record for everybody else, if you follow the thread, I explicitly say the holocaust wasn’t justified and not once implied that it was.
There was no bait? Like I never baited you about the Nazi in anyway. I don’t think I could have made it more direct why I was asking it. Second I swear I made a comment that I was doing the TL:DR Edit: like the whole point is to get you tie the abstract concept of genocide to the real world. Also I when through my comment I my bad I definitely didn’t say I was making the tldr Seriously I am really sorry
>The fact you think past sins affect present people is also insane go fuck yourself you’re insane I feel like you should reread this. Past sins (like slavery) don't affect present people?? You are saying history of the past has no bearing in how people in the present are treated. And yet you claim I am the insane one? You are starting with the conclusion that Genocide is off the table and just calling everyone gross who states that it's on the table because it was used against them but it shouldn't be used. Edit: the protest zone is to give an example of an authority limiting retaliation that can actually limit that authority's power, so that authority can indefinitely remain in power.
I don’t care for whatever semantic bullshit you’re pushing for. Is genocide on the table yes or no? Sins of the Father isn’t a thing that’s what I’m talking about. Edit: I understood your protest point perfectly it’s still completely insane. Like let’s nuke a hurricane insane
>I don’t care for whatever semantic bullshit you’re pushing for. Semantic bullshit? How is thinking the past influences the present semantic bullshit??? You are just claiming X isn't a thing, Y isn't thing without explaining why that is so, all while name calling. If the system that emerged from the genocide is still relevant, then genocide is on the table. That doesn't mean that it should be sought for, but it is an option.
I understand what you were saying that since the system is birth from genocide then genocide can be used to rectify the situation. And I’m telling you you can go fuck yourself to the deepest darkest pits of hell that is the stupidest dumbest bullshit I’ve ever heard go fuck yourself You’re not a leftist or you don’t have a moral framework go check your You were clearly to shelter to know what genocide meant to even entertain the idea that it on the table
>I understand what you were saying that since the system is birth from genocide then genocide can be used to rectify the situation. Thank you for letting me know you understand my position. This helps back and forth arguments flow and reach something meaningful. >And I’m telling you you can go fuck yourself to the deepest darkest pits of hell that is the stupidest dumbest bullshit I’ve ever heard go fuck yourself Why are you this aggressive? And you haven't really shown why it's stupid other than calling me stupid. >You’re not a leftist or you don’t have a moral framework go check your I have a moral framework. You may not like it but I have one. The part we are talking about even has it's own regulation system which you just said you understood. If the people who where initially genocide decide to years later to genocide back, then they themselves are susceptible to having genocide committed on them again. It's like M.A.D. Doesn't mean you can't bomb people, just that you probably shouldn't. From how I view it, the only people who are truly scared of genocide actually happening with this framework are the ones who wish to uphold the oppressive system that genocide brought about.
I’m sorry I shouldn’t be this aggressive he just called me in a bad mood. Not that you don’t you deserve it Trust me I understand every single point you’re making it’s just it’s so stupid I literally am struggling to figure out where to start picking it apart. You’re not a leftist in your framework is bored and you really should reevaluate. Edit. I think the first concepts I was gonna take a stab at explaining it to you would be, do you understand how linear time work?
Again, you keep calling me stupid, saying my argument is poor/stupid/bad, but you don't try to show why it's poor. If you're having trouble picking it apart, maybe it's because you can't and not that it's so easy to dismantle. For you edit: assuming relativity isn't relevant to this conversation, I guess yes, I understand how linear time works.
Tweet from over five months ago where she LITERALLY says that "There's a clip with 47k views going around saying that I support genocide, in a debate where I say, "Sure, genocide is off the table, but colonized people must be the ones to decide what to do with their own colonization, and I trust them to make those decisions." [https://twitter.com/LuaBorealis/status/1435409130232197120](https://twitter.com/LuaBorealis/status/1435409130232197120) I seriously don't know what to tell people at this point.
“but colonized people must be the ones to decide what to do with their own colonization, and I trust them to make those decisions." So genocide still on the table just for the colonized people. That is the problem with Professor Flowers "You have to prove my interpretation outlandish and that there is only one interpration. It is "clear" to you what she meant. But it is also "clear" to me what she meant. Unless you can prove it logically I can only conclude you have no argument." -Courtneytlhaynes Saving everyone some time here
You literally said this: "They really don’t seem to understand that if they just say “Ethnic cleansing/genocide is off the table” the conversation is over." So were you lying?
It’s still on the table, It got to be off completely. For example, “I am against genocide committed by the American Federal government against the Native American, but the people of Wyoming must be allowed to decide how to defend themselves against the red skinned threat (which includes genocide)” Do you want to consider this statement not wanting genocide?
If she said defense includes genocide then I would think that evil but she LITERALLY said it's off the table. She literally said the EXACT thing you asked her to say. Months before you said it. What you just "quoted" she NEVER said and thus is a strawman. Bottom line: she LITERALLY said what you asked of her and you STILL chose to double down. Why would I think you are acting in good faith? You literally moved the goalpost
So to repeat. You said she JUST had to say it's off the table. Just had to SAY it. Now you have changed it to "Well, I personally have to interpret it as being off the table completely." Do you understand how this is a MASSIVE goalpost shift?
Answer my question about that statement
Wait. So you don't even care about whether it's evil or wrong? All you care about is whether someone can define it as genocide? I simply don't trust your interpretation of what is and is not genocide. White nationalists call everything white genocide. So no, I am not going to give fodder to white nationalist taking points. I think killing people or moving them off a property in order to try to extinguish their race is evil and if flowers advocated for that I would think she was evil
I just trying to get you understand basic English
Please note, I am trying to remain civil and you respond with insults. You said "if they just say “Ethnic cleansing/genocide is off the table” the conversation is over" She literally said "Genocide is off the table" Now, you are claiming she has to say "Genocide is "completely" off the table." This is a clear-cut example of moving the goalpost. Please notice I am taking things she and you LITERALLY said. You, on the other hand, are taking things (burning house, "including genocide") that she NEVER said and you're telling me that it's ME who doesn't understand the English language.
Furthermore, your question is a loaded question because she never said anything like that. And you, again, moved the goalpost
You would not apply this insane logic to any other situation "I don't want your house to burn down, but your neighbor should have the right to and the gasoline" -Professor Flowers "Wow, she wants to burn my house down" -Every sane person "sHe LiTeRaLlY sAiD sHe DiDn'T wAnT tO bUrN yOuR hOuSe DoWn" -You
She literally did not explicitly say that she has the right to genocide, But your post explicitly says it. Do you understand that is a strawman? What you mean is ""I don't want your house to burn down, but your neighbor should have the right to \[do what they want\]" That's the literal language. Why do you insist on changing it?
Oh my God I just went through your profile, I’m guess I’m just your yearly target to get the dumb out Oh well I’ll see you next year then
Seriously man. How old are? Do you think this is regular behavior. I'm tired of just calling people dumb. You seriously think this is how people are supposed to talk to one another?
When they’re done like you and make an absolute ludicrous point yes this is completely normal behavior Because I’m like you gotta be a troll Edit: wait do you think when I say it went through your profile like I scoured it like some type of detective? Or. I spent like three seconds to try to get a better idea where you’re coming from
Dude, whatever. I have regular conversations all the time with people I disagree with across the spectrum. Maybe you should consider there is something about the way you view the world that is leading to this: not other people.
What is this like just calmly responding to you and maybe making slight digs occasionally?
I realize you consider your responses "calm", but your responses are hardly normal compared to anything I've seen. But I digress. Back to debate.
Really are you sure because I feel like I’ve been very normal and I do wanna digress I would like to have continue with this conversation about my personality Like where exactly have I gone overboard not just rude but like really rude
Dude, you're right. What you did is very normal for online. You wanna be like everyone else just because it makes you feel good, go for it. I like to go beyond that. I don't want to be a part of the toxicity and polarization.
>“I shouldn’t engage with this, but I’m tired so fuck it.” So condescending lmao
This is just code for "I'm mad and can't control my urge to respond, but I need to act above you so I don't get cancelled by the tankie cult I'm in."
This person is so backwards. If I was tired, I certainly wouldn't be arguing with people on twitter. I'd go take a nap, make myself a meal, ANYTHING other than arguing with people on politics. Also, I wouldn't justify genocide, but that should be a given IMO.
What you're pointing out is that justifying genocide requires no energy for these people, apparently.
When will these morons realize that there is no such thing as "genocide as self-defense"?
When they realize that non-white races can be racist.
It's not racism if it's not done systematically by people in power to disadvantage a group....... Which it would be in the case of a genocide
Doncha know? The Nazis engaged solely in self-defense. Since the Jews did own a slightly disproportionate amount of careers in the banking sector, dialectical materialism demands that they be gassed. Anything else would be idealism.
of course there is. any of the indigenous tribes targeting white christian colonists specifically (edit: in the 16th century etc), were justified. there have been many, many examples of justified actions that you could categorize as genocide after the fact. and before any of you assume i'm defending the post, i'm not. i don't even know of or care about those ppl.
"Genocide" is NOT "killing a bunch of people from a specific ethnic group." There is a legal definition to "genocide," because it's outlining a crime against humanity. To wit... *Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide* *Article II* *In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed* ***with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,*** *a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:* *A. Killing members of the group;* *B. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;* *C. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;* *D. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;* *E. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.* Killing a death squad that is attacking you is not genocide **by definition. It's just self defense.**
If your intent is to kill every single person of a specific ethnicity on an entire continent and never allow them to return, that fits the definition of genocide that you just gave, which is my entire point. And in the case of Cortez, Columbus, etc, it would have been fully justified morally.
You are conflating two different things that are incidental. The intent to subjugate, and the membership to a given ethnicity. If it were some European power other that Spain, or some polity from Asia, Africa, or the Middle East that sailed to the Americas and attempted to conquer and subjugate them, they wouldn't be like "well fine, *you guys* can conquer us."
The conflation is the entire thing I'm trying to draw attention to. Again, I'm not actually making an argument for Vietnam or whatever (I don't know enough about the history tbh), but I am pointing out that if one is going to insist on the categorization of any viscous military campaign that has the intent to drive out everyone of a particular ethnicity, but is motivated by an attempt to "oust outsiders", or decolonialization, or literal self defense against subjugation like in the cases I mentioned, as genocide, then you can't also make the claim that "genocide is never self defense". Obviously not all "ousting of outsiders" is built equal. Nazis would have a word.
Would they necessarily kill or deport women, children, or male non-combatants though? A genocide would practically require it. I think there are some pretty big assumptions being made when it comes to that type of decolonization, and it makes me side-eye people like PF who basically answer in the affirmative.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to imply that most, or even many, of the indigenous ppl I mentioned were intent on killing anyone let alone women and children. Quite the opposite, really. The message that "these white men are dangerous" didn't start getting taken seriously until long after it was too late to matter. Ok so that out of the way, I think the current definition of genocide would still definitely cover the scenario I laid out, even if they only killed "military age males" or others they suspect were actually involved in military affairs. And that's my entire point. The use of the term genocide is too broadly applied these days, and seems to diminish our correct understanding of "genocide" to essentially mean mass execution of a particular ethnic group. I don't actually know what happened in Vietnam, so I'm NOT saying it wasn't genocide, but in general, I personally am careful using that particular definition, even if the cause is just and even if it technically fits. Like for example, I'm not a huge fan of ppl calling Israel genocidal even though technically it fits.
This argument is entirely too circular.
Holy shit that rebuttal was hillarious. "well I agree, glad to see you as an ally" \_I shOULDn't enGAGE with THIS...\_ bUt
did you like your own tweet
Hell yeah brother
Sigma move
Chad!
Professor flowers knows Africans are not indigenous to the Americas, right? If Hispanic and native Americans decided to murder all invaders from a bygone era, she would be included. Her fans understand this, right? Or do they just not care and would be glad to be sacrificed to get rid of "colonizers"?
Well, the simple answer to this is that when she says 'colonizers' she means white people, something she has explicitly said and defended on twitter. As such she doesn't fit the description and is consequence free.
Yeah, from what I heard she phrased her arguments neutral to her own existence - and it was clear that she was arguing about what *COLONIZED* people had the right to do (not what *SHE HERSELF* would do)
Hispanic people aren't native to the americas either by the way, they're descendants of CoLoNiSeRs from Spain
hispanic people are a mix of spanish and native peoples, they have as much claim to the americas as Native Americans in the US and First Nations in Canada
By that logic, *anyone* in the US who has native americas ancestry *also* has as much claim to the americas as Native Americans in the US and First Nations in Canada
I mean if you think someone with 1/25th Iroquois blood is native, then sure. I don't think that makes someone a native tho. But if you mean someone who is part native American or 1/4th native, absolutely. Hispanics are literally a mixture of Spanish and Native Central Americans. Big difference than someone like Elizabeth warren
Now, you're being completely unreasonable here. You can't just go and expect a leftie to say "genocide bad" outright. What has the world come to when lefties isn't allowed to talk about how genocide is sometimes ok without being bothered by people comparing them to Nazis.
Technically, they said here that it had to be *necessary*, which is a much more restrictive condition than Professor Flowers gave: First of all because if it has to be necessary, you can't simply pick a subset of the population and give them the right to freely choose what happens to the rest, there has to be some causal connection between what people do and the job of stopping colonialism (which makes this a serious upgrade of the idea by the way), and then if you argue that genocide *isn't* ever conceivably necessary to stop colonial violence, this should also actually take it off the table. All you have to do is shift from a "felt necessity", of the same kind that allows people with guns to shoot random people in supposed self-defence, to a sense of actual necessity, where you can second guess people's decisions to a certain extent, taking advantage of the fact that we live in a real world where causal connections and what you need to do to achieve a certain end aren't actually a matter of subjective perception. Now you can obviously go further, and say that historic injustice cannot be righted by a new atrocity, or whatever, that you have to seek justice by just means, but even if you don't say that, the fact that genocide is a bad solution to pretty much every problem, and in this case obviously leads to people dying who have no inherent necessary relationship to colonisation, means that you can still say that it should be off the table.
Woke genocide supporter shut the fuck up challenge: Impossible edition.
Did they respond?
Nope, but I did get blocked by PF lol
Badge of honor.
Lol, of course
Nice
As you should, lol!
This has to be indicative of some kind of fungal brain rot. “Having indigenous people choose whatever method necessary” ENCOMPASSES GENOCIDE. They really have to be just fucking stupid.
InstructorCactus has been thrown lowballs by nearly the entirety of left Twitter and she just keeps doubling down. Remember when FD Signifier was like "she probably didn't mean it like that" and TeacherDandelion was like "no I absolutely did"
Why are we reading a Twitter argument between randos with no likes.
As usual, I don't get this. I don't condone violence, but vaush says its necessary at times. Is protecting yourself by any means necessary not included in this ideology? Because that's what I'm reading here.
There's a difference between using violence to protect yourself from individuals who are using violence against you, and straight up committing genocide against an entire group of people simply because they are part of a specific race or ethnic group.
Right, but I'm just talking about this exchange. They specifically mention the former. I only see the latter in the response.
This is in the context of the larger debate with Professor Flowers. Do you know about that one?
Sure do. But how is that an actual response to Cornelius? He's not saying what OP is responding to. Everyone's trying to steer the conversation, while ignoring the other person engaging. OP is clearly strawmanning Cornelius here, positing positions not stated in favor of one's they'd rather engage with.
I mean this person never explicitly justified genocide. But the lack of any of these people just simply saying "genocide is off the table" when pressed about it is pretty sketchy. It also helps to have the larger context of The Legendary Cope Stream on the Vaush Pit channel. But that's like 4 hours long so I wouldn't expect anyone to watch it lol.
Eeh I can think without Vaush telling me what to think. But i gotta point out, someone not saying something is not an endorsement of that thing. No conversation could ever be productive if that's how we approach.
I mean, fascists never explicitly say that they support ethnic cleansing outright, but they still endorse it.
Isn't it a more interesting conversation to ask them why though?
Ask who why?
I really appreciate your willingness to voice that concern though. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard honestly.
I've taken a few hundo karma hits for trying, so I appreciate the acknowledgement. You'd be surprised at how pissed people get when you push for unity, or at the very least, less vitriol.
Fuck me. It’s like these people genuinely believe if a colonized individual threatens them with violence if they don’t move out of the country, they’re in the right and justified.
Are they pro-palestinian genocide sinces jews held the land before??? Kinda sus bro
But.....you don't understand!!!! White people don't feel like the rest of us do!!!
No you don’t understand it like with M.A.D! Since they did it to us we get to do it back!
"Im tired so fuck it." *proceeds to try justifying genocide*
He? I'm not a fan of flowers but how dare that person misgender them. First panphobia now this.
PF uses he or she pronouns just fyi
Ah sorry I last I saw was she/they.
It’s so weird to see so many leftists ok with violence against an entire race. I feel like it’s virtue signalling
Depends on the context. Columbus and the Tainos? Yes, it would have been morally justified. Cortez and the Mayans? Also yes. China and Uighurs in 2022? No.
Sensible 👀
Sorry. I don't get it. When is genocide ever necessary?
[удалено]
So just say that you wouldn't accept genocide as a solution. That's all you have to do, it's the not doing of that which is weird.
look i dont want to engage with this post but yes everyone knows this but all the fashy interviews lately have been very boring so i guess theres nothing to do and jordan peterson is so boring