Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

mobsters

31 (83.8%)

supremacists

6 (16.2%)

Total Members Voted: 35

[LordBucket]

You can prove that a race isn't superior to another

No, you can't. Supremacist stuff is basically a glorified opinion. They're not interested in objective reasons why they're right.

You do realize that racial supremacists generally go to verifiable facts as their number one means of justifying their position, right?

Do we really want to go there?

[Graknorke]

You do realize that racial supremacists generally go to verifiable facts as their number one means of justifying their position, right?

Do we really want to go there?

They use facts in the same way as the religious use facts. If it supports their view they'll take it up, and anything that doesn't is circumstantial or fake or whatever.

[King Kravoka]

You do realize that racial supremacists generally go to verifiable facts as their number one means of justifying their position, right?

Do we really want to go there?

They use facts in the same way as the religious use facts. If it supports their view they'll take it up, and anything that doesn't is circumstantial or fake or whatever.

You could say the same for fringe members of any group really.

[smeeprocket]

there are racial supremacists that aren't fringe?

What exactly qualifies as non-fringe racial supremacy?

[LordBucket]

They use facts in the same way as the religious use facts. If it supports their view they'll
take it up, and anything that doesn't is circumstantial or fake or whatever.

While that phenomenon does occur, and as you point out it occurs in discussions of topics unrelated to race...speaking broadly I would say it's not a generally accurate characterization of my personal experience when participating in discussions about race.

[LordBucket]

there are racial supremacists that aren't fringe?

What exactly qualifies as non-fringe racial supremacy?

For example, it's completely socially acceptable to believe that saint bernards are generally larger than chihuahua's and that golden retrievers are generally friendlier than pitbulls. Of, if you want human specific examples, it's pretty socially acceptable and I would say "not fringe" to believe that white men can't dance, asians are good at math, blacks have large genitals, etc.

The distance between acknowledging that racial differences exist to acknowledging preference for specific traits is a very small one.

[smeeprocket]

there are racial supremacists that aren't fringe?

What exactly qualifies as non-fringe racial supremacy?

For example, it's completely socially acceptable to believe that saint bernards are generally larger than chihuahua's and that golden retrievers are generally friendlier than pitbulls. Of, if you want human specific examples, it's pretty socially acceptable and I would say "not fringe" to believe that white men can't dance, asians are good at math, blacks have large genitals, etc.

The distance between acknowledging that racial differences exist to acknowledging preference for specific traits is a very small one.

One of those is a fact, I don't agree with the rest of them at all and they have negative connotations for society.

That's just stereotyping and general racism, not really supremacy (also pitbulls are very friendly)

[LordBucket]

One of those is a fact, I don't agree with the rest of them at all and they have negative connotations for society.

Nevertheless, they are "non fringe" beliefs, which I believe is what you asked for.

That's just stereotyping and general racism, not really supremacy

Well, as I said, it's not such a leap from acknowledging difference to expressing preference for a particular set of traits. Context is important. It's difficult to say which of cotton or steel are "superior" to the other. But if you're talking about building bridges, you probably would agree that steel is the superior material.

Probably even hardcore KKK members would agree that blacks generally make better basketball players than whites. But I don't think you'd claim that that would make them not supremacists.

[smeeprocket]

One of those is a fact, I don't agree with the rest of them at all and they have negative connotations for society.

Nevertheless, they are "non fringe" beliefs, which I believe is what you asked for.

That's just stereotyping and general racism, not really supremacy

Well, as I said, it's not such a leap from acknowledging difference to expressing preference for a particular set of traits. Context is important. It's difficult to say which of cotton or steel are "superior" to the other. But if you're talking about building bridges, you probably would agree that steel is the superior material.

Probably even hardcore KKK members would agree that blacks generally make better basketball players than whites. But I don't think you'd claim that that would make them not supremacists.

All but one of the examples you listed aren't really necessarily true though. Like I said, they are all just stereotypes.

This isn't about steel and cotton, because the only one that is similar is the first dog comparison. Because that is the fact in the bunch.

Also, I don't understand how the KKKs feelings on basketball mean anything.

[Loud Whispers]

Overall I'd picked supremacists. Though if we're allowed to choose definitions, then a more detailed order in order of most favoured first to least favoured last:

• 1. Religious supremacists. Enlist as a teacher of the state approved faith, reap massive Borgia money. Easiest way up with least risk.
• 2. Sovereign nationalist supremacists. Pretty much same as #1, but requires more work and easier to lose support.
• 3. Feudal mobster rule where the world is divided into cartels and princedoms ruled by their respective mobs. It'd be an interesting age to live under, with a fair chance to rise up the ranks as the higher ups are killed in mob wars.
• 4. Established mobster rule as done by a mobster group that has progressed to the point where they are a pseudo-government with obligations to the people. Live pretty much same as usual. Less chance to personally become a dictator though. All in all the average choice, worthy of #4.
• 5. Government collapse and the mobs don't take up the mantle, the world turns into a slum of murder and villainy. This world sucks. Everyone is a murderhobo or murdered by hobos.
• 6. Crowd mob rule, or mob supremacists. Piss off the wrong authority and you're ded. No thanks, too easy to get lynched.
• 7. Ethnic supremacists. Even on the off-chance that they're of my own race and that they give me props and benefits for it whilst solving the world's problems in straightforward ways (i.e. lets end world hunger by killing the starving), a world where life is that cheap is not a safe one or one that will last.
• 8. Peace, Equality, and Justice Supremacists. Nothing worse than to live under than a strong government run by well intentioned tyrants. I assume this is the one where I'd be most likely to be horribly murdered instantenously for throwing my shoes at P.M. Peaceful.

*EDIT
Forgot about the dystopian versions.

• Tied with 1. Human supremacists. REMOVE BLUE CAT PEOPLE FOR THE EARTHLAND
• Tied with 1. Dwarf supremacists. REMOVE ELF PEOPLE FOR THE MOUNTAINHOME
• Tied with 7. Eugenic-minded folk. My genes a shit, I would get purged rather quickly.
• Tied with 8. Mobsters flooding the world with drugs and pop culture. Truly there are few things as horrible as giving the customers everything he and she wants.
• Tied with 1. Confused supremacists. They don't know what they're doing or what they value, and sure as hell would be funny to live under - even if I am arbitrarily executed one day or the next for reasons unknown.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

• 1. Religious supremacists. Enlist as a teacher of the state approved faith, reap massive Borgia money. Easiest way up with least risk.

Until you don't know every verse of the chosen holy book.

[pisskop]

• 1. Religious supremacists. Enlist as a teacher of the state approved faith, reap massive Borgia money. Easiest way up with least risk.

Until you don't know every verse of the chosen holy book.

I would imagine that at one point our society will evolve to the point where we can have the hierarchy without the punishment of those on lower tiers.

Where the only difference in the tiers is strictly how much excess you have, not what you dont have or maluses you recieve

[Loud Whispers]

• 1. Religious supremacists. Enlist as a teacher of the state approved faith, reap massive Borgia money. Easiest way up with least risk.

Until you don't know every verse of the chosen holy book.

If my life depended on it I think I would put more effort into learning THE GENERIC WORD. Or at the very least try to form a schism so I'm not promptly set on fire. Or just keep a copy of holy.txt on me at all times. Shit, how many corrupt preachers actually give a damn about the historical canon of what they're preaching?

[LordBucket]

All but one of the examples you listed aren't really necessarily true though. Like I said, they are all just stereotypes.

You said, quote:

there are racial supremacists that aren't fringe?

What exactly qualifies as non-fringe racial supremacy?

So I responded with examples of non-fringe beliefs about racial superiority.

This isn't about steel and cotton, because the only one that is similar is the first dog comparison. Because that is the fact in the bunch.

Also, I don't understand how the KKKs feelings on basketball mean anything.

The point is that "superiority" is too vague to mean anything without context. Any time you ask "which is better" you need context to be able to answer the question. A "supremacist" doesn't necessarily believe that one thing is always and in all things better than something or someone else. They believe that it's better in the contexts that they care about.

It doesn't make sense to say that steel is better than cotton or cotton is better than steel. It does make sense to say that steel is better than cotton...for building bridges. It doesn't make sense to say that chihuahuas are better than siberian huskies. It does make sense to say that if you're an 80 year old grandmother with  broken hip who wants a lapdog, that the chihuahua is the better choice.

Similarly, you can say that if you want a good basketball player, a black guy is more likely to be the superior choice than an asian. And even a KKK member would probably agree with that. Being a "racial supremacist" doesn't mean that you believe that one race is always better. Only that it's better in the specific cases that you care about.

And with that understanding, there are many socially acceptable "non fringe" beliefs about racial superiority. Some of those beliefs might be true. Some of them might not be. And there might not be an exact one-to-one correlation between accuracy of those beliefs and how socially acceptable they are.

Nevertheless, entirely mainstream non-fringe beliefs about racial superiority do exist.

Again, if you say "asians are good at math" in a public place you don't generally get shot  or accused of being a fringe weirdo for it.

[Cheeetar]

"Supremacism is the world view that a particular age, race, species, ethnic group, religion, gender, sexual orientation, class, belief system or culture is superior to others and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control or rule those who do not."

Ok. So...what kind of supremacists are we talking about? Just like it matters whether we're talking prohibition era alcohol mobsters or Russian sex trade mobsters...it matters what kind of supremacists we're talking about. Checking the list of things that could qualify one as a supremacist, "belief system" and "culture' for example, I could point out that probably most of us currently right now live under supremacist rule. And probably most everyone reading this thread is themselves personally a supremacist. Do you believe that a culture where people are nice to each other and engage in honest, open trade and are kind to animals is fundamentally superior to a culture where people rape and kill and murder each other and mutilate animals as sacrifices to their gods?

If you say yes, then guess what: you're a supremacist.

The second half of your definition is where you show that you're wrong in identifying each and every single person as a supremacist. I may believe that my culture is superior to others, but that does not mean I believe that I then deserve to dominate, control, or rule those not in my culture. You're wrong.