you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

No need for name-calling, outrageousboote.

Read again the definition and note this:

acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such

Non-whites aren't thinking while having sex that: "yeah baby, this will help kill off those honkies!"

(Nor are non-whites actively trying to "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group")

[–]outrageousboote 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The system is trying to decrease white status and population, the average nonwhite is not fond of honkies but i'm not talking about the spic, chink or nig down the street.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

No

(If you have a reliable source that discusses the developments of societies, do mention it. Or consider Popper's 'Open Society and its Enemies', or Arendt's 'The Origins of Totalitarianism', or more generally, Macintyre's 'After Virtue'.)

[–]outrageousboote 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Absolutely yes, whites aren't allowed to self-segregate, have freedom of association or expression or act in their own racial interests. Meanwhile coloreds are allowed to do these things.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

This is an interesting point.

But I do think whites self-segregate quite often.

Perhaps you are referring to legal requirements for hiring practices, which can limit the hiring of whites, in favor of non-whites. This is sometimes appropriately called 'positive discrimination' or 'reverse discrimination', and can unjustly favor a poorly qualified person and reject a much better qualified person who happens to be white.