Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
Topic: New conspiracy theory just dropped: racists are bots
Mr. Black Boi started this discussion 4 weeks ago#135,219
I’ve been thinking about it. My entire life I’ve never heard a white person say the n word in real life. I’ve been thinking about it, and what if most people leaving comments on the internet aren’t real people? I thought before maybe they’re just losers who don’t go outside, but I hang out with engineers who don’t go outside and none of them are racist so…
Mr. Black Boi joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 19 minutes later, 43 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,436,981
@previous (Oatmeal Fucker !BYUc1TwJMU)
I’m in my 20s and I’ve been to different states and I’ve been to Europe and I’ve literally never heard anybody actually say it IRL but I see it on the internet all the time. I find it hard to believe that all racists in the world are really that scared, it has to be that most of them on the internet aren’t real people, otherwise it doesn’t really add up.
Mr. Black Boi triple-posted this 4 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,436,983
And I’ve met people who are racist or people who are assholes, but somehow out of all the things I’ve heard people say I just haven’t heard that in particular like ever.
> And I’ve met people who are racist or people who are assholes, but somehow out of all the things I’ve heard people say I just haven’t heard that in particular like ever.
Most racists are edgelords or idiots. The race realists pretend they’re scientific and don’t use it. The old school bigots use it around other whites.
Mr. Black Boi joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 4 hours later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,049
@previous (G)
The type of racism I find the hardest to wrap my head around is race realism. Because essentially it’s based on the idea that you can judge a society based on how wealthy it is. So they’ll say things like, "How come China was poorer than Africa in the past and now there rich but Africa is still poor, isn’t that evidence Africans are stupid and Chinese people are smart?" But that doesn’t make any sense if you think about it, because China is evidence that incredibly poor countries can very quickly become very wealthy in the modern world under the correct conditions, and in the 1960s, when China was still poor, nobody would have made that argument because nobody would know that China would be the second largest economy or first if you do it by purchasing power today.
There’s this idea, that intelligence is genetic, and wealth is determined by generics, and everything is predetermined. But it’s so obvious that that’s not true, at every level. Sure generics might influence your intelligence to some degree, but it’s not the end all and be all, if it was why do schools exist, why do universities exist? If wealthy was determined by intelligence and nothing else then how come people can move between economic classes? How come rich countries can deindustrialize, how come poor countries can industrialize? And why is wealth the only thing you’d judge a society for? That just seems shallow. Once you have everything you need to survive, food, water, shelter, what’s the rational drive to making more money over other cultural pursuits?
I could go on and on about it. But the thing I hate the most about it is it implies that everyone has a finite limit to what they can accomplish based on their intelligence which is determined by brith. Which is incredibly pessimistic if you think about our future as a species. Do you want technological progress to grind to a halt? Because there’s no other way to interpret that.
(I don’t mean "you" literally I just mean some hypothetical person.)
Mr. Black Boi double-posted this 4 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,050
Then it’s also stupid because in the past people used this idea of biological inferiority to assume black people were stupid, but every time they always guessed that black people were incapable of things they’re completely capable of. Back during slavery they didn’t teach blacks to read or write because they assumed black people were too stupid to read or write. So then there weren’t black people who could read or write. But black people are smart enough to read and write. It’s easy to think someone is stupid if you don’t hear them out and deny them the opportunity to be successful. And if racists really thought other races were inferior they wouldn’t try so hard to prevent people of other races from being successful. It’s a completely selfish sorry way to live life. Because even if you win by holding people back you didn’t win in a fair or honorable way so nobody is going to respect you.
Mr. Black Boi triple-posted this 4 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,052
And really none of these things need biological explanations. If you look at countries in Africa, if you look at a country like India, where do 99% of the problems in everybody’s lives in those countries come from? Poverty. Why are those countries poor? Look at history, it’s super obvious: it’s because of Europe!
Mr. Black Boi quadruple-posted this 4 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,053
India actually used to be one of the wealthiest societies in the world before it was colonized. If you look at google street view in India, compare the modern buildings built after the British got there to the old buildings built before the British got there. The new buildings are all terrible but the old buildings in India are so beautiful, it’s crazy to call the Indians or their culture inferior when it’s the west that destroyed their culture and their civilization.
Mr. Black Boi quintuple-posted this 4 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,055
Even in first world countries like Japan… racists sometimes make exceptions for Japan but I was looking around at Japan on google street view and I came to the same conclusion that the buildings built before they had contact with the west are just better architecturally. They don’t have the cheap capitalist soulless aesthetic with power lines all over the place.
Mr. Black Boi sextuple-posted this 4 weeks ago, 11 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,056
And I’m not even hating on the west, gothic cathedrals are beautiful.
Then with Africa, the whole idea that Europe was so much more advanced than Africa and that needs some biological explanation, if you just compare the difference in size between Europe and Africa as landmasses and you google what the population of Europe and Africa are now, in 1990, in 1945, and in 1800, and you look up when Europe colonized Africa, it doesn’t need any biological or cultural explanation. Africa was just underpopulated for most of history. And even though they were underpopulated, when Europe invaded Africa in the 1800s, west Africa wasn’t hunter gatherer tribes, it was more equivalent to medieval Europe in terms of technology. Guns had already been introduced to west Africa and they had swords made from iron, and they had writing and governments, if you look into it.
Mr. Black Boi joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 26 minutes later, 12 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,058
If you assume everyone is equal and you assume the population difference between Europe and Africa explains the past, if you look at population projections for Africa and Europe in 2100, the ratio will be more extreme than it was when Africa was colonized by Europe but the other way around. Which is part of why the alt right in Europe and the US is doomed to fail.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 4 weeks ago, 2 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,437,090
Well yeah I assume they were. Was that not common knowledge?
Most of them lurk and live online with many usernames however irl there are very few who act out their ideologies.
That’s why any time I see a racist bigot commit a hate crime and gets caught, I chalk it up to just them finally being tired of having to hide their low iq so they try to defy the script by chimping out.
> The type of racism I find the hardest to wrap my head around is race realism. Because essentially it’s based on the idea that you can judge a society based on how wealthy it is. So they’ll say things like, "How come China was poorer than Africa in the past and now there rich but Africa is still poor, isn’t that evidence Africans are stupid and Chinese people are smart?" But that doesn’t make any sense if you think about it, because China is evidence that incredibly poor countries can very quickly become very wealthy in the modern world under the correct conditions, and in the 1960s, when China was still poor, nobody would have made that argument because nobody would know that China would be the second largest economy or first if you do it by purchasing power today. > > There’s this idea, that intelligence is genetic, and wealth is determined by generics, and everything is predetermined. But it’s so obvious that that’s not true, at every level. Sure generics might influence your intelligence to some degree, but it’s not the end all and be all, if it was why do schools exist, why do universities exist? If wealthy was determined by intelligence and nothing else then how come people can move between economic classes? How come rich countries can deindustrialize, how come poor countries can industrialize? And why is wealth the only thing you’d judge a society for? That just seems shallow. Once you have everything you need to survive, food, water, shelter, what’s the rational drive to making more money over other cultural pursuits? > > I could go on and on about it. But the thing I hate the most about it is it implies that everyone has a finite limit to what they can accomplish based on their intelligence which is determined by brith. Which is incredibly pessimistic if you think about our future as a species. Do you want technological progress to grind to a halt? Because there’s no other way to interpret that. > > (I don’t mean "you" literally I just mean some hypothetical person.)
Race realism is the latest in “scientific racism” to follow de Gobineau and the eugenics movement with confirmation bias. It uses the statistics and outcomes that suit its argument devoid of context. They include Precious and exclude John McWhorter or Neil deGrasse Tyson.
I could just as easily point to some New Jersey Pine Barrens enclave and like sampling for whites.
Anyone who has to exalt their pigmentation default setting as an identity has nothing else going for them. Whether a neo-Nazi skinhead or a Black Hebrew Israelite.
It could be more understandable with context like the Depression. Now we should know better.
> If you assume everyone is equal and you assume the population difference between Europe and Africa explains the past, if you look at population projections for Africa and Europe in 2100, the ratio will be more extreme than it was when Africa was colonized by Europe but the other way around. Which is part of why the alt right in Europe and the US is doomed to fail.
The Alt Right is doomed to fail because it’s just a grift tied to oligarchs. There’s no deep ideology and no ideas. At least the non-Nazi fascists of old had a bunch of ideas, including agrarian reform, reorganizing unions into guilds, and some social welfare programs in mind.
Anonymous N triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,585
You know the last time South Africa ever had a white president was right before apartheid ended and they’ve never voted for a white president? The only white people who ever became president of South Africa didn’t get there through democracy. In fact, no country in the continent of Africa has ever had a white president since apartheid ended in South Africa. But Obama was democratically elected as the president of a white majority country. Can you explain that?
@previous (N)
You don't immediately understand the difference between a nationstate picking a leader from it's ethnic group and a religion that is supposed to be for all of humanity.
This isn't a practical limitation either, we don't live in the medeival age. If they wanted to, they could have had a black pope with a rigorous religious background a long time ago
The fact that you can't tell the difference between a religion of universal brotherhood, above race, from a nation picking from their own ethnicities is retarded. The fact that you would use this example without ever realizing the obvious flaw in your reasoning, makes you a retard of the highest degree.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,593
@previous (L)
Oh so every nation chooses leaders out of the population that lives there except for white people who have a special reason according to you because you’re a retard.
Anonymous O double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,594
Italians live in Italy, most popes were Italian, this is the most retarded thing you could possibly ask me about. It’s like asking why are there so many fish in the water and asserting the ocean must hate dogs and cats. You always ask so many stupid questions, you’re so fucking retarded.
Anonymous O sextuple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,599
Oh but you didn’t answer any of my questions therefore you must be stupid and not know the answer, so therefore my answer must be correct because if you can’t answer that means my answer is correct somehow, because I’m good at logic and I think that’s how logic works. Look at me, I’m not delusional like a woman!
Anonymous L replied with this 3 weeks ago, 56 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,612
@1,437,595 (O) > Why is every emperor of Japan Japanese?
We just went over this, Japan is almost entirely ethnically Japanese, and does not claim to be an organization for all of humanity.
If the Catholic Church claimed to be for Italians, it wouldn't be surprising that they didn't have a black pope.
But for globalized church, with members across the globe of many ethnicities, that claims to be for all of humanity? Yes, it's very odd that they haven't even had *one* black pope out of 266.
There's a big difference between you refusing to answer a simple definition for a word, while continuing to post a dozen other things
And when I step away from the keyboard for an hour.
You are actively refusing to answer a question, no matter how many times it's posed, and I am just temporarily not posting and will answer when I get back.
Irrelevant, because whether they are white or not, or when that changed doesn't change the fact that the church has never had a black pope.
However they may have been categorized by various cultures, all popes have been lightskinned. How skin refracts light isn't subjective, even if the specific ethnic categorizations of Italians is.
Anonymous P double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,616
@1,437,614 (L)
There were African popes… there’s no evidence that they had dark skin or light skin because there’s no record of what their skin color was.
Anonymous P triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,617
I find it really annoying how you have no evidence for anything you believe and you just make stuff up and assert that things are true that you have no way of proving and are stubborn for no reason. It’s like you’re mentally disabled or something.
Anonymous L replied with this 3 weeks ago, 42 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,618
@1,437,613 (P)
If that were true you'd point out the inconsistency, but you're just parroting phrases you've heard before with no understanding of what they mean.
Certain organizations have certain values and goals.
The Japanese monarchy has never been for anyone but the Japanese nation, so it's obvious why the Emperor is always Japanese.
The Catholic Church claims to believe in universal brotherhood, and is ostensibly opposed to racism. Yet their choice of popes reveals that they actually do have a very strict racial bias, and do not believe black peolle are fit for the position.
If they truly believed in the equality of races, there would be at least one example of a black pope, and probably a lot more than 1. At least in the time period it was feasible, it would have been hard for the early church to do this before globalization.
Anonymous P replied with this 3 weeks ago, 40 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,619
@previous (L)
You’re making claims about the skin color of popes whose skin color hasn’t been preserved in the historical record. Your entire argument is based on a made up premise.
> The Japanese monarchy has never been for anyone but the Japanese nation, so it's obvious why the Emperor is always Japanese.
During World War Two, Japanese propaganda claimed they were taking over Asia to liberate Asians from the west. Which obviously is bullshit, but not everyone in Japan was always Japanese, there was a substantial Korean population.
Anonymous P triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 4 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,626
Now, if you weren’t such a narcissist and you were actually honest, the only acceptable answer is that nobody knows what ethnicity the African popes were. Racial views during the Roman Empire were completely different than they are today, and status was not based on skin color. Slaves in the Roman Empire were usually prisoners of war, regardless of whether they were from North Africa, or what we would consider modern day Germany, or Israel or whatever. You’re imposing prejudices that originated hundreds of years after the fall of the Roman Empire onto the Roman Empire, it’s dumb.
Anonymous P quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,627
I can’t put into words how stupid the idea that the Roman Empire had white supremacist views is. They literally enslaved Germans, they thought Germanic people were uncivilized. That’s where the word barbarian comes from. It originally was used to describe Germanic peoples. There’s no way to make that compatible with modern white supremacy, it’s a completely different thing.
Anonymous L replied with this 3 weeks ago, 7 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,631
The reason no one has ever claimed there was a black pope, including the Vatican itself, is that something like that would have drawn a lot of attention and been documented in many places.
Yes ideas about race have changed overtime, no that doesn't mean it would have been normal or not noteworthy if a darkskinned person became pope. There's a big difference between stereotypes about Italians in early America giving way to a broad category of "whiteness" and the idea that people in the past wouldn't have remarked about an obvious dark-skinned (not just a little tan) person leading tbe most influential organization in europe.
In the past some people changed their names and worked on their accents, and they could hide their italian (or jewish, etc) ancestry.
That obviously wouldn't have worked for a black person. That difference in appearance would be obvious, and noted.
It's extremely pedantic and grasping at straws to pretend this is a possibility.
Anonymous P replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,632
There are some quotes that people like to cherry pick to make it sound like the Nazis liked Asians, one is a quote from Mein Kampf where Hitler said he had to admit that the Chinese had a history "superior to our own." The reason is, because even as evil as he was, he was smart enough to know that Nazism was a lie he was making up, there was no great ancient German civilization, it was something he made up. It never happened.
Anonymous P replied with this 3 weeks ago, 2 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,634
@1,437,631 (L)
I haven’t claimed there was either, all I said was that you can’t prove that the African popes weren’t black so you have to say that you don’t know.
Anonymous P quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,637
The Roman state religion before the Edict of Milan was incompatible with early Christianity because the Roman state religion was polytheistic and required the worship of emperors as gods. Christians believe in only one God and that it is blasphemy to put other god before their God. For this reason, early Christians refused to serve in the Roman army which the Roman government considered to be a threat to their rule so early Christians were punished harshly during the Roman Empire, often executed.
Anonymous L replied with this 3 weeks ago, 49 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,638
@1,437,634 (P)
Anyone with common sense will know that the most famous person in the west wasn't black, because such a dramatic divergence in appearance would have been noted by someone. Could have been church records, or a court scribe in some kingdom, but somoone would have made a note.
You have to be delusional to think that there could have been a black pope and not a single person recorded it somewhere.
Anonymous P double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,640
@1,437,638 (L)
I literally just explained that Christianity was illegal in Europe while Victor I was pope. Most Europeans were not Christian back then and he was not the most famous person.
Anonymous P replied with this 3 weeks ago, 4 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,645
@1,437,642 (L)
Just because you think they would have doesn’t mean they would have, and even if they did, that doesn’t mean that record would survive until today.
Anonymous L replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,652
@1,437,645 (P)
You are delusional. Do you really think it's possible the entire west was so colorblind that not a single scribe wrote down that the church did something so radical as choose a black pope?
Anonymous P double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,655
@1,437,653 (L)
You’re claiming the west would never let a non-European be pope, even though Jesus was not European and for centuries westerners have worshiped him as God.
> Really, if you’re a Christian, none of what I’m saying should be surprising. In the Bible, the Romans aren’t the good guys, they executed Jesus.
Is there a reason you're pretending I said the Romans were good or something here?
Like is the hope that I get distracted by the strawman, and forget that you claimed it was possible that the Catholic Church diverged from a longstanding racist society and not a single scribe wrote it down?
Anonymous P replied with this 3 weeks ago, 34 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,657
@previous (L)
You’re trying to make the argument that the pope was the most famous person and was more well known than kings, when that’s not true, Christianity was illegal in Europe.
Anonymous P double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,658
You don’t know basic history. Christianity was spread to Europe from Israel. It was considered to be a foreign threat to Rome and the Romans weren’t white supremacist, they enslaved white people. You’re just completely ignorant.
Anonymous P triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 3 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,659
I’m not making some hippie dippie argument that the Roman’s were so moral that they were just above racism. I’m making the argument that their racial prejudices were completely different. Slavery is wrong, it was wrong when the Romans were enslaving people, but the Romans did not exclusively enslave sub Saharan Africans, slavery is why Europeans are biased against Africans, slavery is the origin of racial prejudices agains black people. Racism against black people was invented to justify slavery of Africans. Slavery of black people was not happening during the Roman Empire. Some slaves were probably black, the vast majority of them were not. There was no societal level hatred of black people in Ancient Rome, that just didn’t exist. Sorry.
Anonymous P quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,660
But for real you’ve gotta be pretty rot fucking stupid to still be falling for the propaganda of empires that don’t exist. If you fell for North Korean propaganda that’s one thing, how are you falling for 500 year old Spanish empire propaganda? That’s crazy…
> Yes. Anti black racism literally didn’t exist back then.
Delusional.
It was different racism surely, but people noted differences in appearance and had prejudices.
You can probably find black people that were honored and accepted, but that doesn't disprove that race was noted and important anymore than someone could find a celebrity black athlete and prove America is not racist.
> You’re claiming the west would never let a non-European be pope
No, that's a strawman you invented to avoid what I actually said.
I said there was never a black pope because it would have been shocking and noted by one or more of the societies in the area because of how unprecedented it is.
Jesus would have probably had some color, certainly not nordic white. It's well known, and documented that he came from a Jewish population.
The idea that societies back then would have recorded geneologies carefully and given us records of where Jesus came from. That they would have a complicated system of vassalization within the Roman empire. But that a black pope, an anomoly, wouldn't have been recorded by anyone? Just dumb and delusional.
Anonymous P replied with this 3 weeks ago, 47 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,664
And it’s so stupid "would have recorded genealogies" my man, we know Jesus was born in Israel and Jesus was Jewish because the Bible says Jesus was born in what’s now Israel and Jesus was Jewish.
Anonymous P replied with this 3 weeks ago, 37 seconds later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,669
@1,437,666 (L)
Why are you even arguing with me when it’s clear you don’t know anything about what you’re talking about? You’re just a racist trying to push a racist agenda because racism just feels right to you. You don’t have any evidence or logic it’s all just vibes.
Anonymous P quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,673
I wonder if 2,000 years from now some idiot will be arguing that Americans were racist against Martians and would never let a man from Mars be president…
> Blah blah blah, everything is always a straw man, you’re like a broken record you don’t know any other logical fallacies.
I'm not the one picking the fallacy, you are. I'm just pointing it out.
Do you think that you can repeat the same deceptive tactic, and somehow get away with it because people don't want to repeat themselves?
If one roommate steals from another three times, and the other roommate says "stop stealing my stuff" who's at fault? The person repeatedly doing the same bad behavior, or the other roommate who is repeating the same accusation?
You struggle with some very basic concepts.
In the next thread we meet, when you desperately try to save face by spamming strawmen arguments I'm going to point it out then too. You don't get a free pass because your mistake is the same you always make.
Anonymous S joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,677
@previous (L)
Isn’t it convenient you didn’t complain about a strawman for 90 comments in a row and then magically decided out of nowhere this thread is filled with strawman arguments out of nowhere.
Anonymous S double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,678
It’s almost like you realized you were losing so decided you had to change strategies and act like a bitch about something irrelevant. You don’t even know what the strawman is, you’re just saying strawman on repeat when you have no clue what you’re even referring to. It’s sad.
Anonymous S quadruple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,680
Really you’re just a grandiose narcissist and the only reason why you talk to me for so long despite the fact that I never agree with you no matter what you say is because it bothers you that I disapprove of you. You say you’re a racist and you think black people are inferior but you deeply care what I think about you and I know that, which is why I never stop bothering you.
Anonymous L replied with this 3 weeks ago, 16 minutes later, 2 days after the original post[^][v]#1,437,682
@1,437,677 (S)
Again, you choose when to use a strawman.
The timing usually does work out this way. You can't get around a fundamental flaw in your view (like the entire world ignoring an obvious difference in someone's race) so you resort to strawman arguments.
Convienent if you want to distract.
@1,437,678 (S)
The strawman was pretending I said it was weird Jesus was more well-known, which I never said.
@previous (S)
I like pointing out the big obvious flaws in your ideology, you can ignore me when I do this if you really wanted. Instead you make multiple personal attacks and try to change the subject and add in random irrelevant factoids to distract.