Fuuuuuhhhuhuhuuuck no.

Well, okay, I'll leave this box on in the background too.

2:11 - The whoa moment where you realize this podcast has an angle.
3:15 - Social sciences and critical theory are bullshit, and there are spies from UC Berkeley out to get them.
4:00 - Free speech is a weapon of weakness, so they are going to use it against the dirty college evil for trying to block free speech. IT MAKES SENSE!
5:30 - UC Berkeley are like the Communists who murdered sixty million people in Russia.
8:30 - They have their own Trigglypuff, used as such people are used for such things as this. Kill yourselves, white people (is the message of this part).
10:15 - There are just too many goddamned Asians in the world.


Seriously, I ain't doing this for two hours. Come to movie night.

Where is movie night? How do I attend?

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/poetv-monday-night-movies

thx!

Oh you know they're just using the same nomenclature and rhetoric, and why shouldn't they? In perhaps 20 years European Americans will be an actual minority, and should be protected and covered by all the laws and social norms being constructed by the current minority classes today. Certainly in many areas they already are.

You know, the great thing about living in NYC is that you really internalize the idea of tolerance as a practice rather than an ideology. That is to say, you tolerate people and behavior. You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it, but it is essential for a heterogeneous society to tolerate it.

If I have an issue with the white power people today, it is that they define themselves by negative comparison to other groups rather than pride in positive accomplishments. You can and should be proud of your heritage: all races and creeds have their heros and geniuses. White power today is intolerant, and should be called out on that. But there is no reason it can't be tolerant and positive.

>>it is that they define themselves by negative comparison to other groups rather than pride in positive accomplishments.

Is that true, though? At least in the case of modern white pride movements, that seems to be a straw man. Not even the KKK endorses "hate" anymore. WP individuals may rail against injustice nad push back against power structures, but most of them seem more like Varg, circa today: laid back, family dudes with an avid interest in Thor.

Also, your assessment seems to be implying that WP people are *unique* in sometimes defining themselves through negatives. I really hope this isn't the case, because one does not have to look very far to find other negatively-defined identity groups: Nation of Islam, La Raza, ISIS, Juggalos, trannies, SJWs, hell, even faithful adherents of either major American political party. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that EVERY identity group "defines itself by negative comparison" in SOME sense of the phrase. All it takes is a little semantic wrangling.

It's also begging the question of whether or not the hypothetical identity group is WRONG in defining other groups negatively! For the sake of argument, what if your group IS the best group? Can you not point out this fact? For example, as a preppy, I think it's fair for me to say that my own group is superior in almost every way to those fat special-ed kids, living in the run-down summercamp across the lake. When we trounce those plebs at the annual Lake Wannapu Summer Games, winning the legal titles to their land and carrying off their cutest female counselors as spoils-of-war, it will be because of MY group's superior intellect, nutrition, and breeding.

We're also better than those fucking Deerfield cucks, and I'm not even joking about that.

It's wrong because, as I wrote, it's intolerant. As you say, many groups fall prey to intolerance and are indistinguishable from the people they claim are terrible for those very reasons.

I assert that it is possible, and preferable, to promote the good things about white culture and white people. This diminishes no one, and can have a powerful positive influence on everyone. That I may laud Mozart in no way diminishes the greatness that was Coltrane.

BTW you should submit that second clip you posted a few days ago about Choate. Not the first one: that's what every collegiate scene looks like. The glossy bullshit one however was piss pure gold. Jesus, 1 minute in and we got The White Man's Burden, so effortlessly bourne!

But "wrong" in what way? Why is it "wrong" because it's intolerant? Do you mean wrong in an objective (i.e. factual, logical) sense? Subjective (value judgements)? Moral? Define "wrong".

Given that you are not a postmodernist and do not reject the notion of objective truth, then there is no logical basis for claiming it follows that, "because x is intolerant, therefore, in a factual sense, x must be wrong". You can feel free to take issue with value judgements, moral special pleading, or even factually *in*correct statements, but surely you'd agree that a factually correct statement cannot have its truth invalidated, simply because you fear it might be construed as "intolerant".

And OK, I put the video you requested in the hopper. My favorite part is the end, when the underlying subtext hinted at throughout gets laid right out in the open.

We're not so different from the Ancient Greeks, really.

If you believe that opinions and behavior is wrong because it is intolerant, wouldn't that make you... intolerant?

I mean, I agree that, in general, intolerance is not positive, but as long as a group or individual is not infringing on someone else's rights, who gives a fuck?

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Karl Popper.

I think Karl is wrong about that and should have more confidence in what a culture of toleration can achieve. In the US they have freedom of speech and let jackasses like Klansmen hold their little marches... they make fools of themselves, everyone laughs at them, that's the end of it.

I think the progress of (the unpleasant side of) Islam in Europe is going to be similar: the longer they stay the more they're going to find that tolerance and moderation appeals to them. Case in point: some people are pointing to the election of Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London as some kind of cultural takeover, but it's really more the opposite: Mr Khan is amazingly open and tolerant, probably more so than the average European.

Tolerance engenders more tolerance. Intolerance creates more intolerance.