Are you antisemitic?
(s6.imgcdn.dev)
Comments (9)
sorted by:
Jews are anti-goyimic!!!!
Jews aren't Semites.
It's important to note that there are jews, who fight against the evil deeds done by the fake state of Israel. I like to remind myself that some jews will die for the same cause I fight for... probably by the bullets of the same brainwashed soldiers too... But it's important to be reminded such a thing because otherwise you turn into a racist, and not all jews are the same.
Another point is the fact that Israelis go through the most sophisticated brainwashing machine ever to exist. If you knew how they operate, you'd thank the LORD you haven't been born in Israel. So, even tho Israeli soldiers are the worst scum in the entire world, after satanists, you should remember that they are still people, who have been brainwashed. The LORD commands us to love our enemies... I find it most difficult with these evil beings, but somehow we must overcome it. The LORD will have His vengeance upon these people. Our task is to show the truth to as many as we can. If some of them can be saved, we must be humble and don't be angry at their deeds, as impossible as that might be... But it is written "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." - Romans 12:19 .
Be also reminded that the same child goes into God's warm embrace, which no human can ever deliver. Suffering will end eventually, as it is written "‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”" - Revelation 21:4
Being a racist simply means understanding statistics. If you pick 1000 random White Americans, and 1000 random black Americans, the there's going to be more violent criminals in the black group, regardless of economic status. If you pick 1000 random ethnic Japanese, and 1000 random Indians or Pakistani, there'll be more people with high intelligence in the Japanese group. If you pick a group of Japanese vs a group of Indians from outside of their home country, we both know which group is more likely to use the beach as a toilet.
Statistics don't say anything about individuals or outliers. But outliers are just that - different from the norm.
If you for some reason needed to entrust the care of your 13 year old daughter to a random man you knew nothing about, and could pick from a White American, black American or a Somali or Indian, and you pick the White guy - congratulations, you're a racist! (And your daughter thanks you.)
I see your point, and I know where is this coming from. That's why I would try rephrase your statement in a way that you could possibly agree to, without using the word racist.
First of all, racist is someone, who judges based on race. If you take 1000 of any race, a racist will count all 1000 as the same. So, we can debate the meaning of the word here, but I also understand your idea, just trying to explain that using that word for yourself is not good. It's a technicality.
Secondly, if I give my 13-year old daughter to anyone that I don't know, I am a bad parent. I wouldn't give my 13-year old daughter even to a White guy, if I don't know him personally. Absolutely out of the question.
Thirdly, I understand your point about statistics. If I walk at night and see a dark person of any race, I would find a different route, or I will prepare for an encounter by clutching my keys harder, or whatever I have available to fend off an attacker.I would never visit India, or eat their street food, no matter who tells me that they know a good place on the street... I would never visit China.
Now, how is that different from what you've said? I would attempt to rephrase your statement, and let's see where we can agree on:
Please let me know how you see the above statement, and whether it aligns with your views, even tho it stays away from the word racist. For me this difference is in the real meaning of the word. Surely, I would be labeled as a racist by some blue-haired emotion catastrophe of a being, but I don't consider myself that just because I don't want illegal aliens in my country, or if I prefer my own race to be around me. That's it.
It sounds like we agree, and are merely haggling over the meaning of words.
The powers that be love to redefine terms, and then use one definition as a straw-man to ridicule the term when used with another or the original definition, in order to make the term itself and any discussion of it taboo. And as such, they like to make "racist" conjure up images of Cleetus from Alabama (itself a malicious stereotype) who is borderline retarded, hates people because of the color of their skin (unsubtly insinuating that skin color is the only possible difference between races), and can't interact amicably with any individual from a different race.
That's not how statistics work, and it's the Cleetus version of "racist". I'm sure such people exist, but that doesn't change the definition.
Statistics also don't tell you anything concrete about individuals; only probabilities. If you know nothing about a specific black and a White individual, and statistics say the black guy is 20X more likely to randomly murder you, that doesn't mean he will.
Obviously. Also dodging the rhetorical hypothetical situation, although you made your position clear afterwards.
From what I can gather, your definition of a racist is someone who is aware of group differences, and perhaps even their genetic underpinnings, but doesn't understand statistics. And my definition is someone who does understand.
We are both aware of group differences and understand statistics. You just shy away from the taboo-label that goes with such forbidden knowledge, and I suppose that's fair enough. I obviously do the same in society at large, because that'd be a pointless uphill battle I don't need.
Today, if you don't disavow the mere notion of more than cosmetic group-differences, you are labelled RAYCISSS, which is a BADWORD that instantly shuts down conversation.
Was I off the mark?
You are completely on the mark. I definitely agree with what you're saying!
It's refreshing to have an exchange with someone, who actually understands the topic, and doesn't create animosity on a slightly different understanding of a term.
I understand your take, and I agree with it. I also understand statistics, but I was focusing on the conclusion that is derived from such knowledge. Like you said "It sounds like we agree, and are merely haggling over the meaning of words." - I fully agree with it.
She has that postpartum ---- and she wants to do it.
A suggested question tempts ones consenting mind onto a quest towards outcome, while ignoring perceivable origin. A jew utilizes suggestion to distract gentiles from using perception.
Only nature does, which allows each native within the free will of choice to REDO aka to respond to being (life) done (inception towards death).
A jew tempts gentiles into a circular conflict (do vs don't) which prevents each gentile confined within it from thinking straight (if > then).
Who remains free to choose in that situation...do vs don't (gentile within a circle) or if > then (jew within a line)?