• jimbolauski@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Prove it, give me an example of what a “good” white supremacist is.

    You still don’t get it, what would one good white supremists change? With one good white supremists would they become less of a threat? If a group has 10 murders in it does the group become less dangerous if the 11th is not a murderer?

    Now you’re focusing on the semantics of an idiom which means “comparing that which cannot be practically compared” (source) rather than provide anything substantial that can lead me to agree with you. Congratulations, you failed at making your point again.

    How about this. What makes the rarity of white supremists instances of violence incomparable to the rarity of Muslim instances of violence?

    Because society is the example.

    Here are a few specifics though, if you insist:

    The British Royal Empire and impact on the slave trade

    Slave migrations to the New World

    Trail of tears

    All rooted in white supremacy, all resulted in complete or partial genocides, all formed the basis of modern western society which still tends to treat people differently due to race/ethnicity.

    You forgot that they all happened a long time ago. How does the trail of tears, slave trade, make white supremacy a danger today?

    I want you to respond in kind with proof of your first comment that there is such a thing as a “good” white supremacist.

    I’ve never made this claim, it’s a flat out falsehood on your part. I assume it’s because your whole argument hinges on this lie.

    You haven’t backed up shit because you haven’t given an example of what a “good” white supremacist is.

    I don’t have to, the rarity of bad people doing bad things in not affected by a good person being part of that group.

      • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I can’t argue with someone who steps into a thread, tries to make a comparison, then refuses to provide a single example of why their comparison is right, then goes on to continually project that they’re the correct and rational one while it’s the other one that’s refusing to do those things.

        You are just stuck on a nonsense requirement that there by has to be a good white supremists but you can’t answer any of my questions as to why.

        I’m simply asking you to go first, since you’re the one that made the comparison. That’s all.

        I stated multiple times there doesn’t need to be a good white supremists provided rational for why, none of which you have tried to dispute

        f you can’t do that then why are you even here if not to just project and troll?

        If you are so eager to have a discussion then you would answer my questions or rebut my reasoning. Instead you keep repeating that there needs to be a good white supremists without providing reasoning.

        Here are some questions to ponder.

        • what would one good white supremists change?
        • With one good white supremists would they become less of a threat?
        • If a group has 10 murders in it does the group become less dangerous if the 11th is not a murderer?
        • What makes the rarity of white supremists instances of violence incomparable to the rarity of Muslim instances of violence?
        • How does the trail of tears, slave trade, make white supremacy a danger today?
          • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s obvious you can’t provide intelligent reasoning as to why I need to provide a good white supremists.

              • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                So far you have failed to provide a satisfactory reason for comparing a group of hateful racists (of which all of them are) to a religion (of which some of them believe justifies violence).

                I have, both rarely have violent incidences and are not a threat to society.

                Now it’s your turn to answer a question.

                How do nonviolent Muslims make the violent ones less of a threat to society?

                This goes way beyond basic prevalence. You just don’t seem to understand that.

                How does this go way beyond basic prevalence?

                  • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    You still don’t get your comparison doesn’t work because you can’t claim one isn’t a threat when one is literally baked into society and one is a religion which only some members interpret the teachings of with the justification of violence.

                    This is where you provide evidence

                    In other words, you can’t stop focusing on prevalence of violent attacks between the two organized groups because in your mind, that’s all there is.

                    Both threats are overblown and used as propaganda, that’s the common link.

                    You claim there are good white supremacists.

                    Back to this lie, I never claimed that there was a good white supremists. You have yet to provide where I made this claim.

                    The other has become more than just a single group or organization, and is now baked into our way of life.

                    Still waiting for evidence that white supremacy is now baked into out way of life.