What is wrong with being a white nationalist ?

9-10ths_Penguin · Nov 21, 2018

ecco said:
Languages have always evolved. It would be next to impossible to understand the English of even just 800 years ago.

But "white nationalism" wasn't a term 800 years ago; it only dates back to the 1920s. @shmogie 's arguments about the changing nature of language are irrelevant. This isn't about any of the actual changes in English (fun fact: "sell" originally meant "give away freely"). This is about establishing a false narrative to make a racist term mainstream and accepted.

SkepticThinker · Nov 21, 2018

shmogie said:
Tell me butchered penguin, do you think TR would have considered a white nationalist a racist ?
How about Edison ? Churchill ? Woodrow Wilson ? NO

Because the coupling of the two words didn't mean racist till the second third of the twentieth century,

Quit pimping your flaccid nonsense, it is demonstrably false.

Why do you insist on using the word "white?" What is so important about having that in there?

columbus · Nov 21, 2018

shmogie said:
I wasn´t addressing ideology. I was addressing how words are manipulated to mean what they literally do not mean.

Here's a big part of the reason I find your argument speciously ingenious.

Exodus and Leviticus describe "lie with a man as with a woman" as an abomination. Nothing about lesbians, nothing about gay male sex when at least one participant is not lieing down. But plenty of people manipulate that into a blanket condemnation of homosex, even though the words don't literally say any such thing. They then extrapolate that manipulation into opposition to gay marriage.
As though Jesus Himself said something like that.
Frankly, I suppose that Jesus was just as homophobic as Moses and modern Christians. But He was never quoted as having an opinion.

So, when you insist on the literal meaning of "white nationalist" while also ignoring the Bible when it suits you, I assume that you're just adding your own unsupported opinions to your worldview,

and attributing it to God because there's no rational way for you to explain why you believe what you do.
Tom

shmogie · Nov 21, 2018

columbus said:
Here's a big part of the reason I find your argument speciously ingenious.

Exodus and Leviticus describe "lie with a man as with a woman" as an abomination. Nothing about lesbians, nothing about gay male sex when at least one participant is not lieing down. But plenty of people manipulate that into a blanket condemnation of homosex, even though the words don't literally say any such thing. They then extrapolate that manipulation into opposition to gay marriage.
As though Jesus Himself said something like that.
Frankly, I suppose that Jesus was just as homophobic as Moses and modern Christians. But He was never quoted as having an opinion.

So, when you insist on the literal meaning of "white nationalist" while also ignoring the Bible when it suits you, I assume that you're just adding your own unsupported opinions to your worldview,

and attributing it to God because there's no rational way for you to explain why you believe what you do.
Tom

Nice try. I don';t ignore the Bible. Try learning what Paul and Timothy have to say about homosexuality in the NT.

You used a quotation I never use, because Christians are under the New Covenant,

shmogie · Nov 21, 2018

SkepticThinker said:
Why do you insist on using the word "white?" What is so important about having that in there?

It was important to use it to make my point. A nationalist is just a nationalist. A white person is just a white person. 60 years ago a white nationalist would have been a white person who is a nationalist. Today, the same term means a white racist, apparently, the worst kind of racist. The meaning changed and took on a whole new dimension not based on the words.

Words and meanings change, sometimes naturally by usage.

My point was however, that sometimes words are intentionally changed for political purposes and goals. I cited Alinsky, Lenin, and Orwell as proving this.

Nevertheless, everyone was so consumed with me using original meaning to describe myself, again, to make a point, and calling me names, they took a total hands off approach to addressing the issue.

Proof positive that in this forum, attacking persons is always more fun than having to deal with ideas and concepts, at least for some.

A general, or just left wing trait ?

9-10ths_Penguin · Nov 21, 2018

shmogie said:
60 years ago a white nationalist would have been a white person who is a nationalist.

The closest Google Books result I could find to 60 years ago (from 1962):

But the White Nationalist Party of Verwoerd and his gang got an even firmer mandate to go on ruling South Africa in their own selfish interests.

Arab Observer

More on the Verwoerd they're talking about:

His goal in founding the Republic of South Africa, thereby leaving the Commonwealth, was to preserve minority ruleby white Afrikaners over the various non-white ethnic groups, including Bantu, Khoisan,Coloured and Indian people, who were the majority of South Africa's population. To that end, he greatly expanded apartheid (apart-ness or separate development), the system of forced classification and segregation by race that existed in South Africa from 1948 to 1994.

Hendrik Verwoerd - Wikipedia

shmogie · Nov 21, 2018

9-10ths_Penguin said:
The closest Google Books result I could find to 60 years ago (from 1962):

Arab Observer

More on the Verwoerd they're talking about:

Hendrik Verwoerd - Wikipedia

Yep, 60 years ago everyone in America was discussing a South African political party

9-10ths_Penguin · Nov 21, 2018

shmogie said:
Yep, 60 years ago everyone in America was discussing a South African political party

When they were using the term "white nationalist" they were.

But here's Google: https://www.google.com

Why don't you pull up some of those examples of people using the term in a non-racist way that we're all sure really do exist and that you definitely aren't lying about?

9-10ths_Penguin · Nov 21, 2018

@shmogie - by 1970, the use of the term did expand: by then, they were using it to describe American violent racists:

Charles White, the appropriately- named "Leader" of the National White People's Party, headquartered in Asheville, N.C.. has announced the formation of the White Nationalist Movement "to annihilate the Enemies of the White People...."

The Dixon Line

shmogie · Nov 21, 2018

9-10ths_Penguin said:
@shmogie - by 1970, the use of the term did expand: by then, they were using it to describe American violent racists:

The Dixon Line

So ?

shmogie · Nov 21, 2018

9-10ths_Penguin said:
When they were using the term "white nationalist" they were.

But here's Google: https://www.google.com

Why don't you pull up some of those examples of people using the term in a non-racist way that we're all sure really do exist and that you definitely aren't lying about?

You are really an amusing person. It isn´t whether the term was used early in the century to mean anything. It is if it was used, and I assume it was, logic would dictate so, would it have meant what you say it means to those people ? Especially since you acknowledge the negative term wasn´t coined till c. 1960 ?

Would a national socialist have meant one who supports genocide before Hitler ?

This is third time that you have called me a liar. Do you have a particular character flaw that you have to directly or indirectly call folk names ? Are you so insecure that you cannot just discuss the issues without this childishness ?

ecco · Nov 22, 2018

shmogie said:
You used a quotation I never use, because Christians are under the New Covenant,

Pick and choose - pick and choose.

ecco · Nov 22, 2018

shmogie said:
This is third time that you have called me a liar. Do you have a particular character flaw that you have to directly or indirectly call folk names ? Are you so insecure that you cannot just discuss the issues without this childishness ?

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Why don't you pull up some of those examples of people using the term in a non-racist way that we're all sure really do exist and that you definitely aren't lying about?

As a casual observer, I would have to note that shmogie hasn't "put up".

SkepticThinker · Nov 22, 2018

shmogie said:
It was important to use it to make my point. A nationalist is just a nationalist. A white person is just a white person. 60 years ago a white nationalist would have been a white person who is a nationalist. Today, the same term means a white racist, apparently, the worst kind of racist. The meaning changed and took on a whole new dimension not based on the words.

Words and meanings change, sometimes naturally by usage.

My point was however, that sometimes words are intentionally changed for political purposes and goals. I cited Alinsky, Lenin, and Orwell as proving this.

Nevertheless, everyone was so consumed with me using original meaning to describe myself, again, to make a point, and calling me names, they took a total hands off approach to addressing the issue.

Proof positive that in this forum, attacking persons is always more fun than having to deal with ideas and concepts, at least for some.

A general, or just left wing trait ?

Sixty years ago a white nationalist would have been a Nazi or a KKK member or an advocate for apartheid.

You are a nationalist. The "white" part isn't necessary to say, that is, unless you're a white supremacist. Like it or not, that's how the term is used today. Why add the unnecessary baggage?

shmogie · Nov 22, 2018

SkepticThinker said:
Sixty years ago a white nationalist would have been a Nazi or a KKK member or an advocate for apartheid.

You are a nationalist. The "white" part isn't necessary to say, that is, unless you're a white supremacist. Like it or not, that's how the term is used today. Why add the unnecessary baggage?

Oh, I understand. I am not pleading the case for white nationalists as they are known today. That was just an example of how the meanings of words and terms change.

The point is that history is replete with language being co opted and manipulated for political purposes.

60 years ago someone stating they were a white nationalist would have no stigma attached to them, unless they went on to say that their nationalism was for a whites only in power, state.

fantome profane · Nov 22, 2018

shmogie said:
60 years ago someone stating they were a white nationalist would have no stigma attached to them, unless they went on to say that their nationalism was for a whites only in power, state.

60 years ago someone arguing in favour of racial segregation would have no stigma attached to them. It is not that “white nationalist” was not associated with racism, it is that racism itself was more acceptable 60 years ago.

What is wrong with being a white nationalist ?

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn

shmogie

Well-Known Member

shmogie

Well-Known Member

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

shmogie

Well-Known Member

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist

shmogie

Well-Known Member

shmogie

Well-Known Member

ecco

Veteran Member

ecco

Veteran Member

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member

shmogie

Well-Known Member

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice