Race, Gender and Identity

[Valiant]

Oh, come on. Magic Poriferan called me mentally ill, and Ginkgo said it in finer terms as well.
I actually don't wish to report them, because I genuinely don't care for their opinions.
Didn't then, don't now.

I simply wanted to point out the blatant double-standard.
If you tolerate that, you have to tolerate me.
Or be a complete hypocrite.

 

[greenfairy]

I don't think having pride in one's race or gender entails sexism/racism/ a negative attitude toward the opposing category; for instance, if I believe I am beautiful it doesn't mean I think I am more beautiful than everyone else; perhaps I think everyone is (equally) beautiful (in some sense). It simply doesn't logically follow. True the two are often correlated, but they don't have to come together. I have a certain kind of sentimentality for the cultures from which I am descended. It is a personal connection. It is a celebration of the history of people. I have a similar sentimentality towards the gender polarity which I biologically express; but I believe the male gender is equally good. Once again it is a personal connection. Races and genders are separate properties of an underlying thing, but equal in value.

Personally, though I identify in particular ways with my ethnicity and gender, they are only superficial qualities. They aren't really important in forming my identity. I really feel like I connect with all races and both genders about equally. If I were to suddenly wake up and be a different race and the opposite gender, I would be perfectly happy (although I'd be a little disappointed that I couldn't have babies), and I wouldn't really feel like I wasn't myself. I consider myself a person fundamentally and a citizen of the world. People are just people underneath all the superficial differences.

But that doesn't mean that identifying with those differences is a bad thing- only that the person has a personal connection with them, and an enjoyment of them.

Similarly, I am a member of a couple of minorities; in addition to being female, I am pagan and not exclusively heterosexual. I don't identify as these, but they have shaped my experiences and attitudes, which compose part of my identity. If I were to claim that being pagan did not in any way affect my individual characteristics as a person, that would be patently false. Similarly, if I were to claim that a copy of me which only lacked the quality of being sexually attracted to both genders would be in every other way identical, this would also be false. My beliefs about sexuality have been influenced by my preferences, my beliefs about other areas of life have been influenced by my beliefs about sexuality, and my entire philosophical system has been influenced by my beliefs about all of these.

 

[Coriolis]

This is just a really dangerous remark. Ironically referring to someone with differing viewpoints from you as mentally ill is just an excuse to treat them differently. I don't care how ridiculous their viewpoint seems.

Where's all that tolerance I keep hearing about?

That tolerance is reserved for the content of one's opinions and beliefs, not one's method of delivering or defending them. Failure to demonstrate an understanding of cause and effect, or to understand the need to support supposedly rational claims with logic and evidence may very well be signs of mental impairment. Tolerance might, for instance, lead us to be open to someone's belief in fairies. If they go on to claim that they can prove fairies exist because their brother took photos of the tooth fairy when they were growing up and eventually validated them against the Fairy Standard maintained at NIST, most people would take this is a joke, or a sign of questionable thinking. Not being a psychiatrist, I will make no claims in this particular case.

 

[Beorn]

That tolerance is reserved for the content of one's opinions and beliefs, not one's method of delivering or defending them. Failure to demonstrate an understanding of cause and effect, or to understand the need to support supposedly rational claims with logic and evidence may very well be signs of mental impairment. Tolerance might, for instance, lead us to be open to someone's belief in fairies. If they go on to claim that they can prove fairies exist because their brother took photos of the tooth fairy when they were growing up and eventually validated them against the Fairy Standard maintained at NIST, most people would take this is a joke, or a sign of questionable thinking. Not being a psychiatrist, I will make no claims in this particular case.

I don't believe in tolerating the content of opinions and beliefs I disagree with. I believe in tolerating people. It's out of respect for the person that I listen to their ideas, not out of respect for their ideas.

 

[Coriolis]

I don't believe in tolerating the content of opinions and beliefs I disagree with. I believe in tolerating people. It's out of respect for the person that I listen to their ideas, not out of respect for their ideas.

Then your tolerance has limits, too, just different limits from mine. To me, tolerance includes being open to considering ideas I disagree with, but does not extend to factual error, poor/absent logic, ad hominem attacks, and outright lies, to name a few.

 

[Beorn]

Then your tolerance has limits, too, just different limits from mine. To me, tolerance includes being open to considering ideas I disagree with, but does not extend to factual error, poor/absent logic, ad hominem attacks, and outright lies, to name a few.

The problem is that it seems to me that people who focus on tolerating ideas are less likely to be tolerant of people. Or, maybe my complaint with Orangey and MP is also somewhat linked to what Christopher Hitchens once said, "I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness."

 

[Valiant]

Then your tolerance has limits, too, just different limits from mine. To me, tolerance includes being open to considering ideas I disagree with, but does not extend to factual error, poor/absent logic, ad hominem attacks, and outright lies, to name a few.

Oh wise one. Did you know that there is a 30 000£ reward that you can cash in on if you can prove that germans killed jews on an industrial scale?
It is offered by David Irving, formerly a well-renowned historian from Britan. That is... Until he started digging and questioning things he shouldn't have.
Well, what are you waiting for? Go dig up some real horrifying evidence that hasn't peen proven fake.

So, who exactly is lying here? If you are so open-minded and tolerant, go take another look.
Last time I checked, accusing someone of genocide requires actual proof.
Hate to break it to you: there is none. Nada. Zip.

Here's the head scientist at the Holocaust Museum at Auschwitz-Birkenau admitting to changes made after the war by the red army:

 

[lowtech redneck]

This is just a really dangerous remark. Ironically referring to someone with differing viewpoints from you as mentally ill is just an excuse to treat them differently.

While I agree with the first sentence, the second is not necessarily true; holocaust denial necessitates (at minimum) the belief that 1.) millions of individuals from different countries and different walks of life (i.e. holocaust survivors, including Jews as well as others) were engaged in a conspiracy to lie about the holocaust, and 2.) somehow managed to coordinate their stories to that effect, all of which would imply a sort of paranoid delusion, possibly as a means of coping with traumatic experience through a misguided sense of empowerment and an extreme, frustrated overreaction to a personalized incident representing a (culture and policy-based) problem that mainstream Swedish society is reluctant to deal with right now, all after the losing faith in the Communist beliefs that had previously provided him with comfort, direction, and another category of scapegoat.

Edit: should have read the rest of the thread concerning the timing of his new belief system, but I stand behind my point about conspiracy theories requiring millions of active participants.

 

[Valiant]

While I agree with the first sentence, the second is not necessarily true; holocaust denial necessitates (at minimum) the belief that 1.) millions of individuals from different countries and different walks of life (i.e. holocaust survivors, including Jews as well as others) were engaged in a conspiracy to lie about the holocaust, and 2.) somehow managed to coordinate their stories to that effect, all of which would imply a sort of paranoid delusion, possibly as a means of coping with traumatic experience through a misguided sense of empowerment and an extreme, frustrated overreaction to a personalized incident representing a (culture and policy-based) problem that mainstream Swedish society is reluctant to deal with right now, all after the losing faith in the Communist beliefs that had previously provided him with comfort, direction, and another category of scapegoat.

Hey, I was raised in a leftist family. I only came here because I witnessed reality in Europe, and I found out what's behind it all.
Also, there aren't millions of witnesses. Never were. The whole thing comes from a few. Most in Steven Spielbergs' 50 000 interviews don't talk about gas chambers.
They talk about harsh conditions, to be fair, but also about cinemas, soccer, camp orchestras and such.
Also, those who did coordinate their story had plenty of time to do so, as the russians in particular kept them in the camp for months after the war ended.
Is that really so hard to believe?

They've talked about 6 million jews killed eversince 1919 or something like that. Claimed it in 1933, too.
Did you also know that in the entire area that Germany controlled at its height, there only lived 3.5 million jews before the war?
If lots of them got deported to Israel, England, the United States etc... Not to mention those who went to the Soviet Union.
And if over 3 million people are getting holocaust survivor pensions after the war... Where did those extra 6 million jews come from?
It's all got to do with their whole messiah crap. It says six million has to die before God's reign on earth comes.
Not sure about the old testament/torah/talmudic stuff, that's not really my field.

 

[Valiant]

While I agree with the first sentence, the second is not necessarily true; holocaust denial necessitates (at minimum) the belief that 1.) millions of individuals from different countries and different walks of life (i.e. holocaust survivors, including Jews as well as others) were engaged in a conspiracy to lie about the holocaust, and 2.) somehow managed to coordinate their stories to that effect, all of which would imply a sort of paranoid delusion, possibly as a means of coping with traumatic experience through a misguided sense of empowerment and an extreme, frustrated overreaction to a personalized incident representing a (culture and policy-based) problem that mainstream Swedish society is reluctant to deal with right now, all after the losing faith in the Communist beliefs that had previously provided him with comfort, direction, and another category of scapegoat.

Hey, I was raised in a leftist family. I only came to where I am today because I witnessed reality in Europe, and I found out what's behind it all.
Not because it was easy. I had to convince myself thoroughly by reading and researching this.
Also, there aren't millions of witnesses. Never were. The whole thing comes from a few. Most in Steven Spielbergs' 50 000 interviews don't talk about gas chambers.
They talk about harsh conditions, to be fair, but also about cinemas, soccer, camp orchestras and such.
Also, those who did coordinate their story had plenty of time to do so, as the russians in particular kept them in the camp for months after the war ended.
Is that really so hard to believe? Also look at the video provided above. The changes made to Auschwitz in 1947 is what made air raid shelters into "gas chambers" etc.
It's all propaganda.

They've talked about 6 million jews killed eversince 1919 or something like that. Claimed it in 1933, too.
Did you also know that in the entire area that Germany controlled at its height, there only lived 3.5 million jews before the war?
If lots of them got deported to Israel, England, the United States etc... And if over 3 million people are getting war reparations after the war...
Where did those extra 6 million jews come from?
It's all got to do with their whole kingdom of heaven crap. It says six million has to die before God's reign on earth comes.
Not sure about the old testament/torah/talmudic stuff, that's not really my field.

 

[Ginkgo]

 

[Thalassa]

The title of this thread is a the name of a class I was forced to take in college.

I mean it was a good class.

 

[Thalassa]

Along the subject which arose from this thread, to what extent does your race and/or gender factor into your sense of identity? For me, I would say, very little. I view both as rather arbitrary. Not that my personality hasn't been influenced by the environment I was raised in, and society as a whole, gives more attention to such issues than I do. I view racial pride as a subtle form of racism and pride in one's gender as sexism; both of which, like nationalism, can fester into a disdain for anyone who does not belong to your group, or evolve into a sense of elitism. Are minorities in any given population more likely to identify with these characteristics in opposition to a perceived threat from the majority, whether real, imagined or exaggerated? I can understand it to an extent, as I believe that my personality is contrary to the majority of the population and feel a certain kinship with those who seem like-minded. Perhaps, I have even let resentment toward those who behave in extreme contrast to myself build up over time. Excessively loud people annoy me and if someone seems unintelligent, overly confident and lacking in self-awareness, I admit that I harbor a repulsion to their presence. Much of that has to do with the fact that many of these people seem to rise to the top of the social hierarchy, but I'm getting away from the topic. Maybe it is easier for someone who doesn't belong to a particular minority to form his/her identity on characteristics which don't pertain to such factors; although I'm not differentiating between sex and gender because most will agree that they are innate qualities that nobody has control over, regardless of how an individual defines them. That's what I appreciate about online correspondence. Unless someone divulges their race or gender, they are primarily judged by the content of their character or how they choose to convey it instead of prejudices and expectations cultivated by society.

Re bolded: why does everyone on the Internet hate Se doms?

I checked my nohari the other day, and it was filled with words like "vacuous, loud and self-satisfied." How can you know I'm loud? If you've never even met me in person?

Anyway, you are your race and gender more than you realize. I got a rude awakening just YESTERDAY, I always think I'm so DIFFERENT than the people I left behind in West Virginia and North Carolina, and I start reading about "honor cultures" (the American South is a culture of honor) and I see myself, reactive and vengeful and full of expectations about how men should behave toward me.

Here I am, feminist, living in California, and still a product of my honor-culture-race and gender-role. And so are you.

And white males tend to be the BIGGEST DENIERS.

They're usually all like "race and gender don't matter." Oh, no, I guess it doesn't when the entire world has been designed to cater to white men, I guess race and gender don't matter to you.

EDIT: Nevermind, the reason why people on the Internet hate Se doms is revealed by the RED WORDS.

 

[Elfboy]

Along the subject which arose from this thread, to what extent does your race and/or gender factor into your sense of identity? For me, I would say, very little. I view both as rather arbitrary. Not that my personality hasn't been influenced by the environment I was raised in, and society as a whole, gives more attention to such issues than I do. I view racial pride as a subtle form of racism and pride in one's gender as sexism; both of which, like nationalism, can fester into a disdain for anyone who does not belong to your group, or evolve into a sense of elitism. Are minorities in any given population more likely to identify with these characteristics in opposition to a perceived threat from the majority, whether real, imagined or exaggerated? I can understand it to an extent, as I believe that my personality is contrary to the majority of the population and feel a certain kinship with those who seem like-minded. Perhaps, I have even let resentment toward those who behave in extreme contrast to myself build up over time. Excessively loud people annoy me and if someone seems unintelligent, overly confident and lacking in self-awareness, I admit that I harbor a repulsion to their presence. Much of that has to do with the fact that many of these people seem to rise to the top of the social hierarchy, but I'm getting away from the topic. Maybe it is easier for someone who doesn't belong to a particular minority to form his/her identity on characteristics which don't pertain to such factors; although I'm not differentiating between sex and gender because most will agree that they are innate qualities that nobody has control over, regardless of how an individual defines them. That's what I appreciate about online correspondence. Unless someone divulges their race or gender, they are primarily judged by the content of their character or how they choose to convey it instead of prejudices and expectations cultivated by society.

to be honest, not at all
- gender is not part of my identity. sure, I'm aware of the natural tendencies within myself that probably result at least partially from being male (ex: more aggression and ambition) but I don't feel like I'm supposed to be a certain way because I'm male.
- race is nothing more than a differing set of external traits (skin color, facial structure etc). sexual attraction is the only area where I see race as significantly consequential (for instance, some people are only attracted to certain sets of characteristics that are only present within certain certain races. for instance, I'm almost exclusively attracted to Caucasians because I have a blue eyes fetish). other than that, it's merely a social perception.

my identity is kind of hard to explain. it's like an idealized self in my head that doesn't even look all that much like me, but I strive to be like this ideal self in the way that I behave, what I do, how I dress and what I seek to acquire (perhaps "strive" isn't the best word, as it could imply a desire to change my natural tendencies).
PS: I wrote another page or so going on a rant of useless Fi-babble about my identity, but it would have been rather pointless to include.

 

[Animal]

Along the subject which arose from this thread, to what extent does your race and/or gender factor into your sense of identity?

Gender, as a construct, is a thing that I express in my art work; it demonstrates its impact on me through my portrayal of alter-egos. In real life, I'm one person - female, but with some maleness, high testosterone, etc; I don't really think about "what" I am. But in my music, I express different parts of myself more specifically; hence, alter-egos. I would say, if I had to break it down, my male alter ego represents my lust for conquest and addiction to autonomy while my female alter ego represents my innocence and creativity, and also my pure animal carnality. I also have a third alter-ego who represents my more "practical" rather than "mystical" self; she wears librarian glasses and argues about politics on facebook. Since I happen to be female, and she's pragmatic, she's female; but her personality feels bi-gendered to me, and her nickname is "Dick."

So, I would say it manifests as a form of expression, or works into some way that I express myself through that lens, but it's not necessarily pertinent to my general identity.

As for race or culture, I don't really find it relevant to my sense of self or identity or choices. That being said, I notice some behaviors in myself that are associated with my culture; but that could also be because I was raised by my parents and some of their choices made sense to me, and we share genetics. There are also behaviors in me that people have associated with other cultures, so I have no idea if it's relevant. I'd be interested to see if anyone can guess my background based on text. =p

 

[1487610420]

 

[Thalassa]

This is a pretty good text on the matter:
Part 1: http://www.tomatobubble.com/wonderfulrace1.html
Part 2: http://www.tomatobubble.com/wonderfulrace2.html


Being a White European man, I have certain ideals and obligations which I live up to.
I must be strong, courageous, assertive, knowledgeable and a doer.
I must be a good father, steadfast friend and loving husband.
And by the gods, I am.
I must also fight against whoever seeks to destroy us. And I do.
Courage today, victory tomorrow!
Our identity has been eroded by years and years of ceaseless propaganda and indoctrination...
We have been feminized, liberalized and we have no sense of direction like all other races.
Seeing those without it, I can only think back to the days where I hadn't awakened yet.
I look at others with a mix of hope and pity.

Re bolded: I've seen people like you on the particular severe and conservative and racialist end of European preservation forums. Always caucasion men in their 20s-50s bemoaning the downfall of the white man, feminized pansy, victim of his white ladies running off with Hombre

or bro

or some hybrid of both

When the truth is that it's entirely bullshit. There are also African American and Latina women that date "white men." And the "feminization" of European men must have begun with Shakespeare and his tights, it's not something that post-1970's feminists have suddenly subjected you to.

I find men like you pathetic. If you don't want to be a victim, take some fucking responsibility and stop blaming feminists and liberals for your imagined plight.


Anyway, metrosexual white men are hot, the ones who fully embrace it, they are actually some of the most confident, intelligent, masculine men alive. BECAUSE THEY OWN IT.

It is, however, in my blood to be what I am. And if you look deep into yourself... You can find that warrior there.
Some of you certainly do not like what I write. Today.
But you will remember me when you are forced to wake up from your liberal dream world.
You might have an itchy little precognition that it might just be crumbling all around you.
Soon, we will all live in Detroit conditions, and we will be a hated minority if we do not do something about it.
And you know, the dream will shatter and we are going to war again.
A lot of bad things will happen, but in the end we will regain our identity.

We have everything to be proud of, and nothing to be ashamed of that hasn't been repaid a thousand times already.
The world would be a very uncivilized place if it weren't for white people.
Anyone who tells me I can't be proud to be White can respectfully kiss my behind.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Epiphany]

There are some interesting thoughts here being tossed around like salad. Unfortunately, what little time I've spent in the forum lately has been focused on the subject of camel toe and its offense to humanity. I may return to this thread later.

Please continue...

 

[Salomé]

Something is serious fucked on this forum if someone like Marm can get a 6mth ban for being a bit uppity but someone who commits the crime of Holocaust denial, which carries a jail term in most of Europe, is allowed to spout his hatespeech with impunity.
SERIOUSLY. FUCKED.
Why are you allowing this site to be a hub for the dissemination of the ideas of offensive despicable lying criminals?

And stop excusing him because of his fictional accounts of being attacked by immigrants.

growing rapidly, especially in Europe.

That explains why the sources you cite are distinctly American redneck.

We have a couple of million non-whites. In a small country of 7 million ethnic swedes.
Whites hardly do any crime except drunken brawling anymore, but that seldom hurts anyone bad.

I guess it must have been those non-white invaders who came to my country then? Raping and pillaging and terrorising the natives. You know, given the overwhelming evidence that whites are incapable of violent crime.
Unless you've been lobotomised, you can't possibly believe the idiotic things you are saying. Viking Troll.

I seriously hoped for a career in writing fiction. I want a calm life.

Congratulations on achieving the first of your goals.

I'm going to be honest here- if a new user came on this forum and posted exclusively about this kind of white supremacy stuff, I'd assume they're a Stormfront plant (seriously, they used to send over plants all the time on INTPc, must have thought it was fertile ground for recruiting) and I'd ban them.

Seriously? Interesting. I can't say I've ever encountered an INTP this crazy. Not even at the home of INTP craziness. It would be interesting to find out what the type distribution is in these sorts of groups... I guess the elitism inherent in type-specific fora is more likely to foster delusional ideas of supremacy/persecution.

 

[Nicodemus]

Because I believe in tolerance. Real tolerance. Not this postmodern liberal bullshit everyone-has-to-basically-believe-the-same-thing-but-we-call-it-tolerance.

Is it not also because you recognize a pattern? His ideology is basically a racio-political religion, including the familiar cherry-picking of facts, the fabrication of evidence, the delusion of truth, the resistance to rational thought and reasonable inference, and the urge to turn belief into militant action against 'the others'.