you got intellectually bamboozled by flat-earther, it's no surprise a guy who understands the definition of a word (which you do not) is able to just rip you to shreds. back to your 'studies' licking petri-dishes in the middle of some sad little lab in the middle of nowhere

e: reported, btw



speaking of intellectually bamboozled, my goodness no wonder the USA tears up your visa application here everytime you submit a new one. we got enough problems without trying to import ignorant, uneducated, race-obsessed foreign voyeurs like you

This post was edited by excellence on Mar 7 2019 11:01am

You will have to justify that statement. A race war isn't about power distribution in society. A race war is about killing people over the color of their skin. That's nothing to do with power. The only power involved is the power of killing another human being.

There is no positive result. No power redistribution. Nothing. It's just dead people. There are no politics at play. Just dead people. A race war is one of the few types of war that is truly apolitical, because there is never anything to gain.

As excellence said, you don't understand the definitions of the words you're attempting to argue about. Neither, I believe, did inkanddagger when he made his absurd claim about terrorist attacks. As a point in fact, I can't even find any evidence of ANY political affiliation for Dylann Roof. I've heard nonstop since he shot up that church that he was far right, or republican, or something. But I've just spent the last like 15 minutes trying to find anything that would tell me his political allegiance, and there's nothing there. All I can deduce is that he's called far right in order to try to demonize the right and cause fear of the right in the left. That seems more like terrorism to me than what Roof did. Capitalizing on racially based mass murder to cause fear and terror of an opposing political mindset is awefully close to fitting the description, is it not?

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Mar 7 2019 11:30am

Power doesn't have to be gained by one party. War can also be fought to remove the power of another party. In the case of a race war the power of self-defense, self-determination, etc. is sought to be removed from the "other" race.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Mar 7 2019 11:41am

Yet again, you don't understand the definition of Terrorism, or politics.

Racists do not view members of the race they hate as being human. Full stop. Done. They do not believe members of the race(s) they hate have any power of self defense, self determination, or anything else. Roof's goal was to kill people, nothing more. Not gain wealth, not gain power, nothing.

And you keep talking about removal of power. In Roof's ideal vision, his action would have sparked an outcome of all black people in the US being murdered. That's not an attempt to remove power from another party, because power removed is power gained. That's simply an attempt at genocide. Survivors of such a race war would have lost wealth and power, and gained nothing.

Again, your attempts to conflate active racism with terrorism are a very elementary mistake.

Rip thread potential

If you ask any KKK member if a black person has the legal right to walk into a bar and order a drink, they would still say that they have that right. Regardless of if they should have that right.

Dylan Roof believed that black people shouldn't have rights that they currently have, and wanted to achieve the removal of those rights by inciting a race war.

If you don't think there's anything political about that, or that there's no attempt at shifting power in that goal, then you either have undeveloped critical thinking skills or are refusing to apply critical thought. Regardless of which it is there's no getting through to you until you change it.

I've never met a KKK member, so I can only go by what they have published regarding their views. Likewise, regarding his motivations, I can only go by what Roof said.

He was not interested in removing the rights of black people. Roof believed that black people should all die. They were not human to him. There was no political position he took. For you to claim he believed that the rights of black people should be taken away is just you making shit up. He did not believe they had any rights, even the most basic right of life. That's why he killed 9 of them dude.

There's no attempt to shift power, because power is not part of the issue at all. There was merely one goal, to kill black people. That's it. There's nothing political in it. There's no Terrorism. You can call it a hate crime, and I'll agree with you. You can call it racism, and I'll agree with you. You can call him evil, and I'll agree with you. But to call it terrorism shows a complete lack of understanding regarding the meaning of terrorism.

So let me put it in a slightly different way that might help you to understand. Terrorism is a threat, "You do this, or stop doing that, or give me this, otherwise I will [insert consequence here]." There is always the possibility, by it's very nature, to head off terrorism. You can give whatever wealth or control or power to the terrorist that they are demanding. Failure to do so leads to consequences. On the other hand, there was no bargaining with Roof. There was no demand. There was nothing he was looking to gain that could have headed off his attack. You could not beg, bargain, or reason with him at all. His ONLY driving purpose was racism. There was no terrorism involved in his attack for the simple reason that there was no political motivation. There was no option or stated intent of establishing an ethnostate or anything else. Just a pure hatred for black people.

You speak of critical thought, yet cannot even understand how conflating active racism with terrorism is a falsehood.

When you think you made something nice, but then 7 pages later...

Was a good topic for discussion. I came in expecting to see Biden vs Bernie or something along those lines.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/433085-house-passes-anti-hate-measure-after-tensions-flare

The House passed a measure broadly condemning anti-Semitism and other forms of hatred on Thursday after remarks by Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) unleashed a torrent of debate in the Democratic caucus, underlining tensions in the party.


In addition to Cheney, Zeldin and Gohmert, Republicans who voted against the bill included: Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Mo Brooks (Ala.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Ted Budd (N.C.), Michael Burgess (Texas), Chris Collins (N.Y.), Mike Conaway (Texas), Rick Crawford (Ark.), Jeff Duncan (S.C.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Tom Graves (Ga.), Peter King (N.Y.), Doug LaMalfa (Calif.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Steven Palazzo (Miss.), Mike Rogers (Ala.), Chip Roy (Texas), Greg Steube (Fla.), Mark Walker (N.C.) and Ted Yoho (Fla.).