My Argument with big Far Right Youtuber

Post Reply New Topic

It's true though, isn't it? I see noone has the guts to admit it but it's ok, I won't push the matter.

However if you say there is some reason for this cultural attribute or its outcome then that reason surely needs adequately explained? So I hope you appreciate that the comments did at least have some substance, they weren't just racist rants. Agreed?

Like I said....lovely.

Not sure if you want to discuss the basis of the argument or your opponent's ungentlemanly behaviour.

Said without sense of the tragic irony for a society that supposedly believes in free speech. The sad truth is they would be under similar threat even if they expressed these views in a more polite manner.

I missed this yesterday, so to chime in on the OP five pages late...

My least favorite thing about people with this sort of temperament is that even if they do say something, or even several things that are correct, their behavior almost seems to act as evidence or even proof that nothing they're saying is to be taken seriously. Then - the next time a person hears those ideas from a more calm person they then identify it back to the less controlled person and think "Ahah! This person's just like the other guy/girl - he/she just conceals it better though..."

What he did say, or at least badly represent, that on its own makes sense:

- I do think there's a lot with respect to children of single parents being a lot less successful and in particular boys, the gender role requirements for success and integrity are much less instinctual/innate and it takes good male role models, not just to lead by example but also to have the authority to be able to check ego or attitude in a male child and help him get the sense that he's neither the baddest thing out there nor is he the most important. That's not to say that boys raised by a single mom or dad are always destined to be worse off, nor am I even suggesting that it's necessarily even the choice of the parents involved that things went the way they did, just that it's more the exception than the rule when kids with single parents come out well-adjusted and/or successful.

- I do think The Great Society was written very, very badly, one would almost thing it was even written with deeply racist and malicious intent. The structure of that bill had a lot to do with the breakup of the African American family. What's really sad for black America is that they've gone from frying pan to frying, trying to find their way out of frying pans and fires, and the moment they think they're free of it they get dumped right back into another frying pan. Slavery was the fire they started out in, then the frying pan of de facto and de jure segregation, then the frying pan of Great Society, then the tyranny of lowered expectations as well as all kinds of identitarian demagogues who wanted to either strike it rich or find their Marxist proletariat in them. I think they're getting increasingly wise to the notion that current politics are really just another set of oppression and abuse and I think in the next couple decades there won't be a party super majority, likely in any ethnicity.

- For a long time the democratic party was the party that bought votes through buying people. Democrats bought the poor, Republicans were bought by the rich. The games of both parties actually had a lot to do with how things have degenerated through to today. The one thing that the democratic party absolutely needs to throw off, it's cancer and even mainstream media is starting to speak negatively of it now, is the identity politics and social wedging. That's a large part of how they lost to Trump, it's also made things look as if race relations had been set back several decades as of lately - at least if one watches the news (I work near a mixed area and thankfully it seems like most people are too grounded to get lost in it or just did the other healthy thing which is to stop watching the news.


My best advice - if someone's a bit demagogic on Youtube or anywhere else, if you feel so inclined to call them out - sure, call them out. At the same time it's always best to keep in mind that by that token they're probably not the bese purveyors of whatever opinion they're trying to express, really they may in the all-around sense be pretty bad at it but get a lot of views for being bombastic. Keep in mind that people like shiny things, emotion sells, and so it very well could be rather low-hanging intellectual fruit you're haggling with.

Ok you're right his constant string of insults was perfectly reasonable, and there is nothing sexist about blaming poverty on women and nothing racist about blaming it on black people. Also trash talk towards anyone who challenges his extreme statements certainly counts as backing it up with data... meh whatever.

We're off to a bad start here. That's a weak strawman.



It'd be remiss of us to suggest otherwise unless black people and women have literally zero agency. To what extent is certainly up for debate.



It's valuable to explore them from a causal POV, but he apparently chose vitriol over substance. Of course, we're not privy to the entire exchange, so perhaps he did cover it in greater detail either there or elsewhere.



Should have left it as it was rather than editing in another sarcastic strawman. I literally said the opposite of what you're implying I said: "There's insufficient supporting data".



Do you have anything to offer beyond ambiguous reproach? Have you erroneously concluded that your moral approval is of relevance to me, or are you simply hoisting a flag?

Criticising women and black people does not a sexist nor a racist make, no matter how derisive or littered with cursing the argument being made. Criticising them solely on the basis of their sex and skin colour does. Even taking the OP at face value the former can be demonstrated, yet the latter can't unless one deliberately chooses the worst possible interpretation of the alleged words of someone who is not here to defend himself.

By all means double-down on your blind faith. I'll stick with scepticism, especially when it comes to partisan reporting on people identified as diametric opponents.

Dude blamed poverty on women. That's sexist.

Dude blamed problems in the black community solely n the black community, and denied the role of racism. Not necessarily racist, but edging very close.

What you refer to as "skepticism," I see as convoluted mental gymnastics. People are not so easily defined as "racist" or "not racist." There's shades of grey between the two endpoints, and, just because not everything can be called "racist," it doesn't mean that nothing ever is. A person can express opinions that are in the ballpark of "racism/sexism" without actually being full-blown racists/sexists. Sorry, but I'm not going to shy away from calling a spade a spade just because I don't have 100% concrete proof that the person uttering the remarks is a hardcore racist/sexist.

Saying, "Black people are thugs," is racist. The fact that some black people may be thugs does not make the statement not racist. Even if the person who said it couldn't actually be classified as a full-blown racist, the comment is STILL racist. A spade is a spade is a spade.

I think the black "ghetto" culture mentioned is maladaptive. I don't believe it is caused by genetics or some kind of character flaw that can be attributed to race. You know black people who immigrate from Africa don't have the same cultural problems. A large part of American black culture is completely alien to them.


I would think the reasons are historical. That seems like the most logical thing to conclude. I don't think "it's genetic" or "black people are innately defective" is something that can be made as a default claim without any backing.

As for "substance", claims are made, but they are very shallow. People typically throw out negative statistics about groups of people without background or explanation so that people who already have a racist bias can fill in the blanks. It seems pretty obviously that this is the case with the rant above as it comes with a heavy dose of insult. If you are trying to do anything beyond stirring racial prejudice there's no point in mocking how you perceive black people talk, i.e. "gib more money fo dem programs".

That's not what was claimed in the OP. He allegedly claimed that "family breakdown is caused mostly by women". Whilst that might not be a popular opinion, it's certainly a belief that he might reasonably have formed based on data rather than prejudice.



He certainly seemed to imply that "black behaviour" was the prime factor. As he's discussing behaviour rather than e.g. "nature", it's probably safe to assume he's discussing culture - which is not an innate property of race or ethnicity. To label this racist requires an additional step wherein we assume the worst and attribute a justification or rationale which isn't present: e.g. "black behaviour causes black poverty and they're incapable of changing for the better due to their inferior genetics".

Had the underlined text been present, it would be clear-cut.



Convoluted how? By all means disagree with my reasoning, but if you're going to claim "mental gymnastics" you need to back that up. My argument is neither complex nor inventive and can be expressed in a single, simple sentence:

"I do not accept the assertion that the alleged words of Naked Ape demonstrate racism or sexism as there is insufficient data in support of the accusation."



So you actually agree with me, yet maintain that we should just listen and believe?



Whereas I'm not going to assume there's a spade unless you actually brandish one. You can't have your cake and eat it. Either we're supposed to listen and believe or there are shades of grey. Pick one.

I'm also going to call projection on your part regarding the earlier claim of "mental gymnastics" considering the logic of the above. A condensed version of the quoted paragraph might read:

"People are not easily defined as black or white, but this guy is clearly black despite appearing grey."



Nothing he allegedly said comes close to being the equivalent of "black people are thugs".

Perhaps I'm in the minority here, but I'm not a huge fan of witch hunts. Nor am I particularly fond of environments where questioning whether or not the assessment of "witch" is a fair one is met with derision and moral outrage. When you take into consideration the fact that I was explicitly labelled "very far right" - a phrase surely intended to suggest that I, too, am a witch - despite my being nothing of the sort, it lends a great deal of weight to the concerns of those members of this board who perceive an "extreme left" bias or trend.

Finally, I'll return to your earlier post:



If popular opinion on this board supports the notion that claims made by self-identified "left wingers" regarding those identified as "right wingers" should be above reproach or question, that demonstrates an ideological bias. Do you stand by your original position or, as seems probable going by your "shades of grey" statement, do you actually accept that such things should always be up for debate?

I think the culture of either just about everything being taken from them based on race or, later on, anyone wanting to help them always having rather Faustian strings attached, brought them to a state of cynicism.

In some ways, as the kind of aspie who got stopped at every level by society to have my time, life, and talents wasted by people who had no use in utilizing them productively (ie. being cannon-fodder much of the time) as well as feeling like any possibility for me to actually be in a long term relationship, ever, in my life would require me to be able to jump into my pants every morning or levitate on command - I can understand a lot better now just how much a steady dose of that, over a lifetime, slowly deadens a person's best aspirations.

If a situation is desperate enough, rationally perverse enough, and built on forces too amorphous to confront and defeat - the most dangerous and scary force in your life becomes hope, mainly in all the bizarre ways that it can pick you up a little bit and then drop you from yet greater heights than it lifted you up to. In a way one is forced to uglify, inwardly and sometimes outwardly, to survive. Once that damage has been done, even if a person is able to kinda-sorta wind their back to a place that looks like where they were before the abusive circumstances, they won't ever quite be the same and proper healing could take decades.

So it's just coincidence that it's mainly black cultures that are affected? Given the climate created by the regular posters here it's impossible to discuss or come to any reasonable conclusion as any argument is shouted down at the earliest opportunity as being "racist". So the problem remains and noone can look to solve it.

However if I brought up that black people make up a disproportionately large amount of the prison population, what is your response to that going to be? What brash prejudiced criticism are you going to levy against an entire section of people without even seeing a single hint of hypocrisy?

Police disproportionately target black people, is one reason.

Also for some reason I think people take 'that's racist' as 'your racist' racism isn't that simple. Hell I have even had times I realize something I've thought may actually be a little racist and had to address it. I mean even if there are factors of black culture in america that are contributers to poverty it is still racist to say 'black behavior causes poverty' It implies because of their ethnicity they behave in such a way to cause poverty. I don't see how that statement can be framed in a way that is not considered racist....seems like if one is criticizing things about black culture for instance they should bring up those specific criticisms and why they see them as problematic. But simplifying it to 'black behavior causes poverty' certainly appears to be racist.

I mean I don't know the youtuber, maybe they aren't a full blown racist/sexist...either way that statement still looks racist. I mean if I said something that came off racist I'd hope someone might point it out, so I can think about it.

Guys like him are too far off the planet to engage in civil dialogue with. I just respond with a simple "LOL" and move on.

I found this pretty helpful, ie. the suggestion is that 1/3 of incarcerations are of African Americans and they're maybe 13% of the population:

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf

The resoundingly good news at least for all racial groups - the violent crime rate was dropping fast until recently.

Unless the statistics are badly skewed here for political reasons the suggestion would be, paradoxically, that the police departments are responding to black safety emergencies often enough to be locking up most perpetrators of black on black crime.

I won't say that there haven't been genuine piece of work racist police officers out there, or even some police departments perhaps that haven't been infected with that bug, but the numbers suggest that focusing on the police is focusing on a symptom of a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself. Clearly on a case by case basis there are situations where a particular PD is extorting the populace for financial gains, such as the case in Ferguson, and corrupt PD's need to be made an example of but that tends to be a different problem context than the way it politically gets spun.

Exactly.

You get to wear the "Smart Hat" for today.