You know Duke also endorsed a Dem right? So how much is Dukes view worth now? Try again.
So what he endorsed a Democrat. You do know he said in the following:
“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”
Source:
https://www.vox.com/2017/8/12/16138358/charlottesville-protests-david-duke-kkk
Duke also ran as a Democratic nominee for the presidency. Your point? Oh I forgot you have none in this irrelevant post.
Yet when the group merely creates it own racist justification and it excused as if imbeciles there is a problem.
Racism is never justified, but to understand the extreme grievances of a group of people one must understand the cause. It seems you're more so focused on the effect instead of the cause. Why is the group's rhetoric so hateful? Because in their mind, their logic they're mirroring exactly what was done to them. Outside logic does not apply.
So the primal instinct is to be racist? Interesting.
You're either actually stupid, or playing like you're stupid and I hope it's the latter. It is documented that any marginalized group that has endured oppression in a system in which their constitutional rights have been violated, eventually will form an in-group coalition based on retribution and their form of social justice. We see this with Palestinians and the formation of Hamas, and we see this here in the states.
Which is the same error is evidence being used for justification of racism. More so the above was back by now refuted science will the NOI isn't.
There is no justification. You're just blabbering at this point.
You are blurring the two in my view.
No. I clearly stated "I'm explaining a cause." If I followed it with "because they have a right to do so" then I'd be justifying it. I clearly said in my view any extreme view in this case black nationalism I disagree with because it alienates people of good conscience in other ethnic groups. What you're doing is overlooking that and clearly looking for confirmation bias when there is none.
My point was not with the individual doctrine but that you made a statement about racist supporting Trump while being fully aware that not all racists in fact do.
I said "kinda like all Trump supporters are not racist but all racists are trump supporters." I was paraphrasing an actual twitter quote but in fact there is evidence that most if not all racists are in support of Trump's initiatives as well as his rhetoric this is facts. If you say not all racists are not in support of Trump where is your detailed proof?
My point was not agreement with doctrine but overlooking those groups own political links for the sake of your previous statement.
Whatever you say......
I need an example of this.
You can start with Yahoo comments which when it comes to discussion sections on racial topics which is largely frequented by conservatives and alt-right racists. If you look at the following subject heading:
Democratic lawmakers demand answers from Trump administration on extremists serving in U.S. military
Source:
Democratic lawmakers demand answers from Trump administration on extremists serving in U.S. military
Reading the comments you'll see a lot of whataboutisms there without addressing the issue. Nobody in this comment section alone is addressing the fact that there are domestic white terrorists in our armed forces. Ever other comment is either about what's going on in the Democratic party or Obama. It's all about deflection.
Clear example of whataboutism made in the comment section by one user:
BigFoot said:
"Did they demand answers on a Chinese spy driving around Diane Fienstien for 20 years. Did they care Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired an IT person from a foreign country to oversee the Congressional IT servers for Democrats and helped him avoid any security clearances. What about the FBI warning the DNC to protect their servers against hacking, which the DNC ignored and once hacked refused to allow the FBI to look at them to document what happened."
I would point out I think both sides promote dangerous rhetoric.
What other side? Another Trumpism?
Projection and ad hominem merely based on your imagination. You made social and environmental "explanations" for one group yet the same type argument existed for White Supremacists.
HUH?
You do not even attempt to use the argument so I will point out your failure in methodology. You provided all the ground work yourself but the point eludes your thought patterns.
"Europeans with advanced technology already believed in their own superiority."
So Europeans has misinterpreted evidence. Yet when this was believed in the mainstream it was considered overwhelming evidence. You failed to apply demonstrating a bias.
HUH?
Projection and ad hominem merely based on your imagination. You made social and environmental "explanations" for one group yet the same type argument existed for White Supremacists. You do not even attempt to use the argument so I will point out your failure in methodology. You provided all the ground work yourself but the point eludes your thought patterns.
"Europeans with advanced technology already believed in their own superiority."
So Europeans has misinterpreted evidence. Yet when this was believed in the mainstream it was considered overwhelming evidence. You failed to apply demonstrating a bias
Yet as per the above you failed to consider not apply the method to WH.
As per you exclusion of view from your methods.
Whatever you say