White People Have A Psychopathy Disorder

[DMGAINGREEN]

China practices slavery on a huge level throughout many of their dynasties and it was brutal.
One of the only reason they didn't colonize was because they believed that being racially superior they had no need to conquer these lesser people and unlike Europe had a vast expanse of land and an abundance in resources and exciting ones at that while Europe was a cold rock made up of too many nation states with limited and bland resources which meant they had a much larger need for trade and to expand.

Moors gave Europeans access to those resources and look how that concluded .

Ya only looking at the physical aspect , yes they implemented slavery for work , but whites did it for work , manipulation and conditioning of the African mind , raping the females , burning history books , stealing credit for our inventions etc and well after slavery created redlining to prevent people of color you get mortgages for housing to keep them in the ghetto , leaving boxes of guns on railroads near black communities (I'll drop the documentary) , deliberately putting drugs in the communities . That's pure HATE and I'm just scratching the surfaces , why did white people despise us to the point that they tried to damn near eliminate us ? Stop the futile comparisons of other races and contemplate about why they've been exerting some much effort into wiping us out for 400 years ? There's nothing more vile and gruesome than that

 

[AJaRuleStan]

Majority of what you listed was consensual war between two people

So acts of mass rape and genocide which occurred in Nanking Massacre is somehow lesser in degree of moral accountability/severity because it occurred in the context of a war(second sino Japanese war)? Wow, I wish someone told all those girls getting gang raped not to be to upset because their rape wasn't 100% real rape because it's occurring within the context of a war.

where as white got acquainted with moors(blacks) and they taught whites how to be civilized only to be betrayed and enslaved them along with other malicious acts that are longer than the nile river , and pioneered the concept of race , racism , prejudice that has plagued the world and hasn't recovered since . Do other races have people that lack empathy and have commit vile acts ? Definitely no ones denying that but what I'm saying is that it's no where near the magnitude white have so keep thinking those numbers boutta skew the fact

Okay, lets get the fallacies out the way first.

>whites pioneered the concept of race , racism , prejudice that has plagued the world and hasn't recovered since
Dude, are you even doing any research to test if any of your claims are even true?

In the 14th century CE, the Tunisian scholar Ibn Khaldun(ARAB,MUSLIM, MALE) wrote:

"beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain."

Humans were acknowledging fault lines way before the Europeans dominated the west with such rhetoric. Honesty you could even do research into European history or any location and time and I guarantee you will come to the conclusion that fault lines like —language, religion, class, and ideology has consistently divided society, groups, and tribes through history before the 17 century. It would be just flat out ludicrous to argue whites pioneered such attitudes in places they didn't even visited yet or have little to no influence at.

>I'm saying is that it's no where near the magnitude white have so keep thinking those numbers boutta skew the fact

First you didn't cite any facts, you're just repeating your conclusion over and over and assuming it is true. Also, your conclusion that whites committed more acts of great violence as proof of them being more "evil" or less "emphatic" is also faulty, because let's assume that it is true that whites have done more "great acts of violence", you could easily explain that with a different conclusion like Europe being more technology advance at one point in history allowing them to travel the world before a lot of other groups could which lead to more group clashes being documented with them then let's say Japanese who had no knowledge of how to leave their island.

 

[DMGAINGREEN]

So acts of mass rape and genocide which occurred in Nanking Massacre is somehow lesser in degree of moral accountability/severity because it occurred in the context of a war(second sino Japanese war)? Wow, I wish someone told all those girls getting gang raped not to be to upset because their rape wasn't 100% real rape because it's occurring within the context of a war.




Okay, lets get the fallacies out the way first.

>whites pioneered the concept of race , racism , prejudice that has plagued the world and hasn't recovered since
Dude, are you even doing any research to test if any of your claims are even true?

In the 14th century CE, the Tunisian scholar Ibn Khaldun(ARAB,MUSLIM, MALE) wrote:

"beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain."

Humans were acknowledging fault lines way before the Europeans dominated the west with such rhetoric. Honesty you could even do research into European history or any location and time and I guarantee you will come to the conclusion that fault lines like —language, religion, class, and ideology has consistently divided society, groups, and tribes through history before the 17 century. It would be just flat out ludicrous to argue whites pioneered such attitudes in places they didn't even visited yet or have little to no influence at.

>I'm saying is that it's no where near the magnitude white have so keep thinking those numbers boutta skew the fact

First you didn't cite any facts, you're just repeating your conclusion over and over and assuming it is true. Also, your conclusion that whites committed more acts of great violence as proof of them being more "evil" or less "emphatic" is also faulty, because let's assume that it is true that whites have done more "great acts of violence", you could easily explain that with a different a conclusion like Europe being more technology advance at one point in history allowing them to travel the world before a lot of other groups could which lead to more group clashes being documented with them then let's say Japanese who had no knowledge of how to leave their island.

A New Social Identity (Source from PBS not me since i'm making shyt up)
Toward the end of the eighteenth century, the image of Africans began to change dramatically. The major catalyst for this transformation was the rise of a powerful antislavery movement that expanded and strengthened during the Revolutionary Era both in Europe and in the United States. As a consequence proslavery forces found it necessary to develop new arguments for defending the institution. Focusing on physical differences, they turned to the notion of the natural inferiority of Africans and thus their God-given suitability for slavery. Such arguments became more frequent and strident from the end of the eighteenth century on, and the characterizations of Africans became more negative.

From here we see the structuring of the ideological components of "race." The term "race," which had been a classificatory term like "type," or "kind," but with ambiguous meaning, became more widely used in the eighteenth century, and crystallized into a distinct reference for Africans, Indians and Europeans. By focusing on the physical and status differences between the conquered and enslaved peoples, and Europeans, the emerging ideology linked the socio-political status and physical traits together and created a new form of social identity. Proslavery leaders among the colonists formulated a new ideology that merged all Europeans together, rich and poor, and fashioned a social system of ranked physically distinct groups. The model for "race" and "races" was the Great Chain of Being or Scale of Nature (Scala Naturae), a semi-scientific theory of a natural hierarchy of all living things, derived from classical Greek writings. The physical features of different groups became markers or symbols of their status on this scale, and thus justified their positions within the social system. Race ideology proclaimed that the social, spiritual, moral, and intellectual inequality of different groups was, like their physical traits, natural, innate, inherited, and unalterable.


Thus was created the only slave system in the world that became exclusively "racial." By limiting perpetual servitude to Africans and their descendants, colonists were proclaiming that blacks would forever be at the bottom of the social hierarchy. By keeping blacks, Indians and whites socially and spatially separated and enforcing endogamous mating, they were making sure that visible physical differences would be preserved as the premier insignia of unequal social statuses. From its inception separateness and inequality was what "race" was all about. The attributes of inferior race status came to be applied to free blacks as well as slaves. In this way, "race" was configured as an autonomous new mechanism of social differentiation that transcended the slave condition and persisted as a form of social identity long after slavery ended.

So continue delfecting B , did people realize people were of different kind , yeah but whites propelled the idea of race & class to higher heights with evil intent so continue with lil subtle implications that don't prove nada .

 

[AJaRuleStan]

snip

So continue delfecting B , did people realize people were of different kind , yeah but whites propelled the idea of race & class to higher heights with evil intent so continue with lil subtle implications that don't prove nada .

Fallacy: you're moving the goal-post in a cheap attempt to get a dub

Your first argument strictly was about who is at fault for "creating" Racism and Race, hence, you stating "pioneered the concept" and I posted evidence on contrary proving that a non-white had the same exact rhetoric whites used in the 19th century in the 14th. And now since you can't debate that point your shifting the argument to be about the volume of use and than implying that I somehow denied that point when I made no comment on that talking-point at all.

Wait, actually, I did, "Europeans dominated the west with such rhetoric". I completely acknowledge the volume of use that it was used in the west, my counter-argument was solely about the first to use and apply the concept of racial fault lines is not a white phenomenon therefore any conclusion drawn on whites using that logic must be implied to all humans. Also, your new argument is still weak.


Groups who committed more acts of wrong doings than other groups

must be more evil

or

Geography gave one group more incentive to travel than the other, and technology advancements gave them the ability to do so over the other which increased the chance of natural group conflict to occur with group X more than group Y.

This is the point Piffery tried to point out to you when he brought up geography, but for some explicable reason you ignored it. And as long as you refuse to put evidence proving those other factors played no part than your conclusion has not been proven as true.

 

[Tommy Knocks]

Collectively, they do, why do c00ns still want to be around these people, even if you have to, why not find any and every way to steer clear of them.

Pretty hard to do in a country with 72% white people. It would be like living in Nigeria and saying you don't want to be around Nigerians.

Which reminds me, when do you plan on moving?

 

[DMGAINGREEN]

Fallacy: you're moving the goal-post in a cheap attempt to get a dub

Your first argument strictly was about who is at fault for "creating" Racism and Race, hence, you stating "pioneered the concept" and I posted evidence on contrary proving that a non-white had the same exact rhetoric whites used in the 19th century in the 14th. And now since you can't debate that point your shifting the argument to be about the volume of use and than implying that I somehow denied that point when I made no comment on that talking-point at all.

Wait, actually, I did, "Europeans dominated the west with such rhetoric". I completely acknowledge the volume of use that it was used in the west, my counter-argument was solely about the the first to use or apply the concept of racial fault lines is not a white phenomenon therefore any conclusion drawn on whites using that logic must be implied to all humans. Also, your new argument is still weak.


Groups who committed more acts of wrong doings than other groups

must be more evil

or

Geography gave one group more incentive to travel than the other, and technology advancements gave them the ability to do so over the other which increased the chance of natural group conflict to occur with group X more than group Y.

This is the point Piffery tried to point out to you when he brought up geography, but for some explicable reason you ignored it. And as long as you refuse to put evidence proving those other factors played no part than your conclusion has not been proven as true.

AGAIN , From here we see the structuring of the ideological components of "race." The term "race," which had been a classificatory term like "type," or "kind," but with ambiguous meaning, became more widely used in the eighteenth century .

Did people realize they were different prior ? YES , but they created the term race the and concept no matter how much you try to bounce and flip it
Obviously people realize people were different kinds , but they solidified and coined the definition which is used in modern times

& the reason I ignored Piffery because it's common sense every race practiced slavery to an extent , but what ya tryna deny is that Whites form of slavery wasn't the most vile and still has a lingering effect till this day , other races did it based on class they did it based on a whole ethnicity regardless of their background and their perceptions of us are subtly displayed in media till this day , but continue to dig in anicent history

 

[DMGAINGREEN]

dbl

 

[DMGAINGREEN]

Fallacy: you're moving the goal-post in a cheap attempt to get a dub

Your first argument strictly was about who is at fault for "creating" Racism and Race, hence, you stating "pioneered the concept" and I posted evidence on contrary proving that a non-white had the same exact rhetoric whites used in the 19th century in the 14th. And now since you can't debate that point your shifting the argument to be about the volume of use and than implying that I somehow denied that point when I made no comment on that talking-point at all.

Wait, actually, I did, "Europeans dominated the west with such rhetoric". I completely acknowledge the volume of use that it was used in the west, my counter-argument was solely about the first to use and apply the concept of racial fault lines is not a white phenomenon therefore any conclusion drawn on whites using that logic must be implied to all humans. Also, your new argument is still weak.


Groups who committed more acts of wrong doings than other groups

must be more evil

or

Geography gave one group more incentive to travel than the other, and technology advancements gave them the ability to do so over the other which increased the chance of natural group conflict to occur with group X more than group Y.

This is the point Piffery tried to point out to you when he brought up geography, but for some explicable reason you ignored it. And as long as you refuse to put evidence proving those other factors played no part than your conclusion has not been proven as true.

Then what adds insult to injury like I mention Moors (blacks) civilized europeans and actually saved them from extinction because if they didn't give them the cure to the bubonic plauge (Which was just bathing ) Europeans would have been wiped out when 1/3 of the population was already wiped out , so blacks saved them fro extinction and what do they receive in return ? .... That's probably the best sin of lack of empathy than anything else because we intervened when they ain't have too .

 

[AJaRuleStan]

AGAIN , From here we see the structuring of the ideological components of "race." The term "race," which had been a classificatory term like "type," or "kind," but with ambiguous meaning, became more widely used in the eighteenth century .

Did people realize they were different prior ? YES , but they created the term race the and concept no matter how much you try to bounce and flip it
Obviously people realize people were different kinds , but they solidified and coined the definition which is used in modern times

In the 14th century CE, the Tunisian scholar Ibn Khaldun wrote:

- :"beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings." "Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated."[114][115]

This is the exact concept of racism/race west ideology used, and it's said by a arab, muslim, in the 14 century. How am I spinning anything, this is a fact!

& the reason I ignored Piffery because it's common sense every race practiced slavery to an extent , but what ya tryna deny is that Whites form of slavery wasn't the most vile and still has a lingering effect till this day , other races did it based on class they did it based on a whole ethnicity regardless of their background and their perceptions of us are subtly displayed in media till this day , but continue to dig in anicent history

Reread, I'm talking about the point he made about geography. Basically, all societies didn't start existence with equal geography and technology which makes it nonsensical to expect all groups actions threw out history to be equal. Like your expecting to find equal amount of wrong doings to have occurred between all racial groups when a ton of other variables between these groups were vastly unequal.

 

[Pifferry]

In the 14th century CE, the Tunisian scholar Ibn Khaldun wrote:

- :"beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings." "Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated."[114][115]

This is the exact concept of racism/race west ideology used, and it's said by a arab, muslim, in the 14 century. How am I spinning anything, this is a fact!


Reread, I'm talking about the point he made about geography. Basically, all societies didn't start existence with equal geography and technology which makes it nonsensical to expect all groups actions threw out history to be equal. Like your expecting to find equal amount of wrong doings to have occurred between all racial groups when a ton of other variables between these groups were vastly unequal.

Some people don't seem to understand that EVERYTHING contributes to the development of a society on all levels.
Whether what's random geological events, a certain person born at a certain time, a chance discovery, random events that become widespread knowledge, hair color, skin color, the type of soil available, the main crops, the language etc etc.
All of those things can create random technological innovations, something like language can make counting slower for one group than another and makes the other group better at math, the type of crop like rice compared to wheat can lead to a more brutal form of slavery for the latter because it doesn't require as careful work, some epidemic can change the entire course of society, the fall of some random civilization in the proximity of another can lead to discoveries centuries down the line that lead to a boom there, haircolor of all things can effect religious beliefs.
There's so many variables that change the way a society develops.

 

[DMGAINGREEN]

In the 14th century CE, the Tunisian scholar Ibn Khaldun wrote:

- :"beyond [known peoples of black West Africa] to the south there is no civilization in the proper sense. There are only humans who are closer to dumb animals than to rational beings. They live in thickets and caves, and eat herbs and unprepared grain. They frequently eat each other. They cannot be considered human beings." "Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule, submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human and possess attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals, as we have stated."[114][115]

This is the exact concept of racism/race west ideology used, and it's said by a arab, muslim, in the 14 century. How am I spinning anything, this is a fact!


Reread, I'm talking about the point he made about geography. Basically, all societies didn't start existence with equal geography and technology which makes it nonsensical to expect all groups actions threw out history to be equal. Like your expecting to find equal amount of wrong doings to have occurred between all racial groups when a ton of other variables between these groups were vastly unequal.

Ibn Khuldun was not a racist, he believed that climate, religion, and food had real demonstrable effects on human character, and when these factors are changed people changed. He uses the examples of the Muslims of the Sudan, and Bilal (ra) as well as of the Turks who embraced Islam, and the Christians of Ethiopia and the Christian Franks and other people to make his argument. Man is man, but is affected by his environment.

at ya tryna put him in the same equation as modern racism , his perception and europeans perception are two different realms and ya know that ya just wanna reach to the highest altitude

 

[Field Marshall Bradley]

why do c00ns still want to be around these people, even if you have to, why not find any and every way to steer clear of them.

Then why are you posting on this white man's site?

 

[Consigliere]

The one thing about people is that they will abuse all the power they have, and time and simple regression analysis can prove that if you control for race you don't come to broad generalizations about behavior. This is the same pseudo scientific bullshyt that they try to pass off on st0rmfr0nt as the reason why black people have lower IQ lol.. I thought that we at least had intellectual honesty here

There are several posters on this site who frequently use white supremacist arguments to walk unsuspecting black people who are unaware of history into a position of agreement with their enemies:

@Kritic
@PhonZhi
@Truth200

Great posters if you want to see someone reference David Duke, Hitler, Slorefront, Fox News, or any other source of intellectual ammunition for YT racists.

 

[AJaRuleStan]

Ibn Khuldun was not a racist, he believed that climate, religion, and food had real demonstrable effects on human character, and when these factors are changed people changed. He uses the examples of the Muslims of the Sudan, and Bilal (ra) as well as of the Turks who embraced Islam, and the Christians of Ethiopia and the Christian Franks and other people to make his argument. Man is man, but is affected by his environment.

at ya tryna put him in the same equation as modern racism , his perception and europeans perception are two different realms and ya know that ya just wanna reach to the highest altitude

Okay, for argument sake lets say that Ibn assumed the difference between racial groups didn't lie in biology, but elsewhere, like religion for instance. He's still takes the concept of race and the current state of blacks and uses it as a fault line to construct an ideology and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges.This is a fact, "Therefore, the Negro nations are, as a rule(key word), submissive to slavery, because (Negroes) have little that is (essentially) human". which by any objective measure you can think of is the exact same logic that was used in the west by whites.

Groups that have X property is less
Group A does not have X attribute
Group B has X attribute
therefore
Group B is less than A

And thru history this logic can be found numerous times were you have different groups that have different languages, religion, class, and ideology sharing the same territory making it flat out illogical to state this type of reasoning is a white phenomenon. You just can't use this prove whites are more evil when this sort of thinking and reasoning can be found in non-white groups. It just doesn't make any sense. I don't know any other way to make such basic logic clear to you.


btw, you still haven't touched the point raised about geography, technology, and the host of other variables that play apart in one groups history being drastically different from another which is still the biggest hindrance for your entire argument.

 

[Kitsch]

@Stacker Pentecost