Quote:


He is talking about Muslims Gandalf, not cultural minorities. Can you see how that might not be the same thing? You have made this error several times already.

Quote:


And yet you happily do the same for Arabs. In any case, the question still stands. Try being little less Muslim and giving a straight answer. If "kill all the non-whites" specifically excludes superiority as a justification, will you insist it is not racist? Or will you stick to your guns of deciding for yourself what is racist and deciding for yourself what a racist actually means in order to maintain that position?

Quote:


You claimed that the fact that Arabs are a linguistic group is a flaw in my argument that "Arabia for Arabs" is racist. This is your argument Gandalf, though it is understandable you are so keen to disown it.

Quote:


Once will do. I did ask you to confirm this earlier. Here is another question you ignored: when Moses referred to 100% of male Muslims, do you think he intended to exclude white male Muslims such as yourself?

Quote:


None of those are racial markers Gandalf.

Quote:


When Moses referred to 100% of male Muslims, do you think he intended to exclude white male Muslims such as yourself?

Quote:


If a person perceived that all non-whites should be killed out of a sense of self-interest, but did not perceive any form of racial superiority, would they be racist?

Is this consistent with your claim that "Arabia is for Arabs" cannot be racist because Arabs are a "linguistic group"?

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2017 at 12:56pm:


Now that's a question, FD. Genocide's not racist, eh?

Quote:


All I saw in the quote you were responding to is Muslim. This is true regardless of Frank's other beliefs. Are you saying that you are ignoring what Frank says about Muslims, despite quoting him, and responding instead to what you think his broader views are?

Quote:


Why not? Why can an extended familial type of self-interest not be the sole reason? After all, race is simply a broader version of family and tribe identity. Are you saying you speak on behalf of every racist on the planet? And not just every racist, but also every possible racist?

Quote:


What if the argument was that the earth is for whites and non-whites should be shipped off to Mars? Or antarctica? Somewhere where they won't get in the way us whities enjoying themsevles.

Why does racism necessarily involve killing but not geographic ownership? What is the fundamental difference there?

Quote:


Why introduce the requisite for superiority when it would still not be racist anyway, even if Aussie was implying superiority?

I assumed you had dropped that argument because you were conceding it was wrong. Why is it that Muslim can be a race but not Arab?

Quote:


Because you are arguing that religion is a 'marker' for race - not that you actually believe it is a marker, but that racists (Moses) believes it is, and he was actually referring to a racial group when he said Muslims. On the other hand, if he actually meant what he said - all Muslims, including the white ones - then it is not racist. Your argument relies one rejecting what Moses actually said and replacing it with your own racist version, just as you do with my whites example. But you also reject your own racist version, hence your refusal to answer the question. this should have been obvious from the quote I was responding to.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2017 at 5:24pm:


What difference does it make? Frank is wrong about muslims not being overwhelmingly accepted into western society. OK? Do you agree? Or would you like to offer some actual arguments to defend his baseless contention?

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2017 at 5:24pm:


There literally is no sensible explanation for advocating mass genocide of an entire race that excludes racial superiority as the justification. Whatever you spin it as, self interest, fear, whatever, it can only be that: you simply don't advocate the annihilation of an entire ethnic group/race if you think they are your equals who deserve the same rights as you. Would you care to have a go at apologising for the holocaust? Were the nazis simply thinking about "an extended familial type of self-interest"? Well maybe they were, but they were above anything else racial supremacists - as are all racists who advocate mass genocide, which thankfully is a very small percentage of racists.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2017 at 5:24pm:


Now who's saying that FD? Certainly not me. In fact I have repeatedly stated that 'arabia for arabs' could potentially be racist - depending on the context it is used.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2017 at 5:24pm:


Who said? Again not me. If Aussie was implying superiority of arabs over another group it absolutely would be racist. No ifs or buts. But thats not how he framed it - he even came and specifically said thats not what he meant. His only point - which I concede was badly prosecuted - was that western meddling in arab affairs has been nothing but trouble - and that it should stop. In fact come to think of it, he was if anything making a critique against racism - the racism of the western colonialists when they trampled all over arab sovereignty.

freediver wrote on Jan 10^th, 2017 at 5:24pm:


umm no FD. When moses talks about inbred psychopathic retards who squat to pee - do you think he had non-inbred whites in mind? Take your time on this one.

The fact that he doesn't take into account, or dismisses, the diversity (ie those who are not inbred/retarded) within a group that he is broad-stroking is a big part of why its racist.

Frank wrote on Jan 10^th, 2017 at 6:13pm:


Today?  Yes, they would.  25 years ago?  50 years ago?  100 years ago?  They would have been just as convulsed with sectarian and racial hatred, Frank, as they are today towards Muslims.   Catholics were hated until the early 1960s in Australia in a similar way to how Muslims are misrepresented today.   "Ethnics" as they became known, were viewed with deep suspicion by the mass of the Australian population until the late 1960s.   All that changed, people met the "other" and found they were exactly like themselves.  Muslims are as well, despite the bullshit that you and your fellow Islamophobes like to post in places like this, Frank.   In thirty years time, Muslims will be just as much part of Australia's Multicultural society as are the Indo-Chinese and the Catholics.    Your hatred will be for nought.  Muslims are here to stay, Frank and you're going to have to become use to them.   

Let's sort this out once and for all, FD. Just answer this:

Are you racist? If not, why not?

Gordon says he nearly married a tint. Andrei says some of his best friends are wogs, Boongs, Chows, etc.

No chickening out this time, FD. How about you?

Quote:


You are saying racism requires superiority. Hence, geographic ownership is not sufficient, according to you. This makes it irrelevant to whether it is racist.

Quote:


When Muslims say they want the west to stop meddling in the middle east, does this include the expulsion of jewish immigrants from Europe?

Quote:


No Gandalf. That is why I said it excludes superiority.

Here again is what Aussie actually said:

Quote:


Would you argue that this is not racist because it excludes superiority? If you can accept that Aussie's argument is not based on superiority, why must you insist on the impossibility of the hypothetical I proposed?

So just to be clear FD - a statement that clearly stipulates that there is a problem with invasion and foreign meddling - and that those invaders and meddlers should "bugger off" and leave the natives alone - is racist? Or is it only racist when its referring to jews?

Has it yet dawned on you how such a political statement critiquing colonialism (albeit crudely expressed) is about 1000 times different to actual racism that clearly emphasises the inherent inferiority of the target 'race' - say like, oh I don't know, asserting that 100% of them are inbred/intellectually retarded?