Despite the evidence right in front of them many will still deny the existence of White Genocide.

<Big Pawn: <gezafan>, thanks for your argument regarding white genocide. I've been waiting for the libs to systematically attack each of your points, refute them, and then replace them with their own points, but they haven't done that yet.>

No they haven't. As is well known the liberals aren't big on rational discourse.

As is also well known, the liberals prefer to attack people personally, ridicule people and to try to shut them up, rather than actually debate the issues.

These things can't be refuted. They're happening.

<geza>, I hope you post this link

gezafan chessforum (kibitz #164)

1. Classification
2. Symbolization
3. Discrimination
4. Dehumanization
5. Organization
6. Polarization
7. Preparation>

Critical Race Theory holds that only white people can be "racist" and that this imaginary "racism" serves to uphold imaginary anti-white concepts such as "white privilege." CRT singles out white people and only white people as bad while non-whites are portrayed as good.

Here, then, are the liberal teachings on race in a nutshell. Whites bad / non-whites good and whites victimizers / non-whites victims. It doesn't go beyond that really. The anti-whites just make up different examples to fit into these paradigms. The liberal mind is so brainwashed with these concepts that they can't conceive of anything that doesn't fit into these paradigms.

CRT separates the world into 2, white people, who are portrayed as evil victimizers and non-whites who are good and pure victims. White people, and only white people, are singled out as being bad.

Critical Race Theory dehumanizes and demonizes white people, which is one of the stages of genocide. CRT itself is a tool being used to advance White Genocide.

CRT is racist because it condemns an entire group of people, white people, on the basis of their physical characteristics. The proponents of CRT try to get around this by saying they're not against white people, who they claim don't even exist, but against the concept of "whiteness." You have to be really stupid to believe this fake rationalization for what is nothing but bigotry and hate. Of course they're against white people! You have to be seriously delusional to believe that white people don't exist.

Wow, <Critical Race Theory> saves 7 whole steps!>

Now let's look at Critical Race Theory and how it's a tool used to advance White Genocide.

1. Classification. In CRT people are separated into two categories whites and non-whites. Whites, and only whites, are classified as bad. Check.

3. Discrimination. CRT advocates discriminatory laws and policies against white people. Check.

4. Dehumanization. CRT dehumanizes, degrades and demonizes white people, whose only attribute of any kind is held to be "racism." Check.

5. Organization. CRT, with it's massive support in government and academia is well organized. Check.

6. Polarization. CRT separates whites and non-whites and sets non-whites against whites. Check.

7. Preparation. CRT conditions white people to believe that they deserve to be harmed and eliminated from existence. It conditions non-whites to believe it's okay, even good, to harm white people. Check.

The disgraced poster has open questions still on the board.

1. <MA School District’s Racially Segregated ‘Healing Space’ Explicitly Excluded White Students> "This is a safe space for our Asian/Asian-American and Students of Color, *not* for students who identify only as White."

Will <saffuna> tell us whether or not this is an example of racism?

A simple yes or no will do just fine.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/massachu...

2. <Lightfoot announced earlier this week that she would be “prioritizing media requests from POC reporters” in celebration of “the occasion of the two-year anniversary of my inauguration as mayor of this great city.” Her spokesman later told a local reporter that she was granting interview requests from black and Hispanic reporters exclusively.>

<Saffuna>, Lightfoot discriminated based on color.

Is that an example of racism?

3. <Senate Confirms DOJ Nominee Kristen Clarke> In college, she wrote that whites are biologically inferior to blacks.

<Saffuna>, is this an example of racism?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/se...

4. Vermont, a couple months ago, announced that black people will move to the front of the line for vaccinations, and whites go to the back of the bus.

Is this discrimination based on skin color an example of racism, <saffuna>?

This elephant in the room has had zero discussion, and there's lots to discuss here.

But the <disgraced poster> avoided all of this, refusing to have a discussion about it, even though there are 4 recent stories, about racism (!) and libs talk about racism non stop.

The <disgraced poster> was called out but decided to suck it up and wear the shame on his face, like so many eggs.

Higher medical risk?

They based it on skin color, not higher medical risk.

I find the lack of substantive follow up, as there would be if the colors were reversed, to be rather deafening.

Therefore, I invite you to follow up substantively, seriously and with insight.

I'm looking for a full blown, in depth, thorough discussion these examples. After all, we have full blown, in depth, thorough discussions on examples where the colors are reversed.

Or even allegedly reversed. Remember Jussie Smollett? He tried to cry black and prove how racist America was by hiring to black dudes to hate-crime him.

Remember?

Anyhow, back on target, where is your enthusiasm and interest in righting these wrongs, in exposing this great evil (racism), and in the noble search for truth?

Out the window?

Libs, like you willy, have to use <critical thinking> skills to deal seriously, substantively and insightfully with these examples, because it's obviously a very uncomfortable subject with libs.

Libs really can talk seriously and insightfully about <racism> when it goes against their preprogrammed narrative.

His method of arguing is to respond with something that does not address what you are saying and then act as if it does. He does this frequently.

That's the only reason I debate with the libs on the other page. There <are> lurking readers and more than one may think. I like how the Lurking Reader sees that the libs never have a real argument and always crumble in debates with conservatives. It's powerful.

<His method of arguing is to respond with something that does not address what you are saying and then act as if it does. He does this frequently.>

That's why it's important to keep the <central point> of your argument front and center. The tuna's favorite tactic in debate is a fallacy known as The Genetic Fallacy, which is where you attempt to invalidate a claim by invalidating the source of the claim.

On exactly what scale is someone with a 1200 SAT "average at best"?>

The scale of entrance to Yale. Maybe not now, but back in the day.

https://www.collegesimply.com/colle... >

Not unexpected. At all.

<OhioChessFan: It's a pretty high bar to say "below the intelligence needed to enter Yale" makes one "average at best".>

True. But hat tip to <Willber G> who seems to be consistently "on the ball" and with whom I have rather few disagreements, because he is intelligent.

Now, let's assume <Willber G> has maintained his usual standard of posting stuff that's solid. And thus, assume Yale takes scores down to 1460. Now then, in what world is 1200 so great, when Yale won't get within 200 points of it?

Thirdly (if you've been scoring at home, you realize this is the 3rd rebuttal), I took the SAT myself. 1200 was average, at best. Anecdotal? Oh, sorry my friend, I got enough scores from enough classmates to get close to a statistically significant sample size. Then I asked outside of my circle.

Game. Set. Match.

<I'll note if the bar is "Presidents", 50% are average at best.>

Ooh. Such a sad retreat.

<Willber G: The figures would seem to support the statement <He got into Yale because of his father>, though.>

Heh. The understatement of the year!

<OhioChessFan: I'll grant that. I'm not 100% confident in the numbers floating around.>

Well, of course!!

I mean, how can you possibly miss it???

Keeping things below the RADAR is the best way forward. For ANY revolution.

Your avatar should show an ostrich with its head in the sand. It suits you to a tee.

<gf> has explained it to you before, but you are intent on keeping your mind closed.

Ask yourself this - if Cannon Hinnant were black, and his shooter were white (in other words, colors reversed), what would the news coverage be like? Well, you can extrapolate from all the times white cops have been forced to shoot armed black people on the attack.

Or, as yourself, what would happen in the media, if statues of Muhammed Ali and MLK Jr. were being toppled all over the US?

Probably you are incapable of conducting such thought experiments, involving the contrast between object and subjective standards, simply because you are incapable of objectivity.

According to the fact-checking site Snopes:

<there is no evidence substantiating a pattern of mainstream news organizations omitting coverage of the child’s death to further a particular racial narrative or for any other purpose>

I suspect that you don't trust Snopes on such issues, but you can evaluate the evidence they present for their conclusion here:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c...

<tga--Well, you can extrapolate from all the times white cops have been forced to shoot armed black people on the attack.>

You don't refer to any specific instances, but your wording indicates that you are more than a bit biased about the details of some of these events. I know that I feel nervous whenever I'm driving and a police car starts following me, but I'm only worried that I'm going to get a traffic ticket, since my skin is white. I suspect that I would be more worried about coming to harm (and would have received more tickets and fewer warnings) if my skin were darker. Here's a thought experiment for you: how much more likely are you to be ticketed, jailed, or shot during a routine traffic stop if you were a white person pulled over by a white officer, as opposed to if you were a black person pulled over by a white officer? Ask some of your black friends about this.

<Or, as yourself, what would happen in the media, if statues of Muhammed Ali and MLK Jr. were being toppled all over the US?>

I'm not sure. I doubt such things will happen, although I suspect if you have your way they will. How far are you willing to go in order to fulfill the dream of the Confederacy rising again?

Here's another thought experiment: have you ever asked yourself how you would feel, as a black person, to see statues to these Lost Cause heroes erected all over the South in the aftermath of the Civil War, rubbing in the fact that while the South may have lost the Civil War, they won the Reconstruction?

Even intelligent libs are still gonna 'lib'. too bad.>

I'm not sure what contention you have with my post - if it's factually wrong then I'll be happy to be corrected.