Race, Gender and Identity

[Beorn]

He is an ever-flowing fountain of poisonous lies. Calling him delusional is a way to detox the lies. The alternative is bottling them up until the end of happiness.

Surely there is something in the Bible about punishing false prophets that you can use to calm your consciousness.

I agree with the first paragraph. I don't agree that it's a pointless persuasive measure since it's the essence of saying "you're wrong". The point, I believe, is that it would be wrong to be silent about the issue. Whether he figures that out or not is a different issue entirely. At this juncture, he's placed his faith in a number of esoteric stances about the nature of historical events; he believes that character is determined by race and that the enemy is cosmopolitanism, when well managed cosmopolitan actions would yield benefits to white people and everyone involved. The interesting thing about rationalization - you can deduce people's unsaid viewpoints. This guy's a white supremacist, plain and simple. I don't think it's fine to say that his beliefs are justified or imply it by defaulting on an irrelevant tangent about how so-and-so isn't accepting him as a person.

I'm genuinely sorry that I indicated that the only options were to either reason with him or ignore him. Moral condemnation of his views is a good response, too. I think his views are lies from the pits of hell and I don't have any problem saying that. It seems to me that many people tend to confuse what is rational, irrational, and morally reprehensible.

I don't think that calling him delusional is equivalent to calling him wrong by morally condemning his beliefs. The reason why I make a big deal out of it is because this has real world impacts on how we treat each other in society. In America on a wider national and statewide level we generally recognize the maintenance of moral viewpoints to be outside the jurisdiction of the state and within the jurisdiction of religion (with the exception, in my opinion, of public schooling). However, the care and treatment of the mentally impaired is within the jurisdiction of the state. If we start conflating what is morally wrong with mental instability we very well might be on our way to a clockwork orange dystopian future where the only thing worst than the crime is the prevention of crime.

Of course mental instability and morally reprehensible viewpoints do coincide, but they aren't the same thing and don't necessitate each other.

Even better. Making faith the basis of knowledge is very subjective because faith is very subjective.

I'm not making it so, I think it's inescapable.

For me it's something of a compulsion to respond to people being incredibly wrong. At least in this case I can count on plenty of other people criticizing him. It's worst when no one else is, then I feel I have to respond because saying bullshit go unanswered is just too uncomfortable.

That fact that what he's saying is so awful is actually more important than his mental wealth when it comes to whether or not I should respond to him. You're the one that became particularly fixated on the observation. I don't think anyone here who's calling him crazy is doing so because they need something to discredit his statements. It's the other way around. His statements and his reasoning have so little credit that it is suspected he is mentally ill. Why would anyone need to make that accusation anyhow? If someone said all these things, but then a psychiatrist told us that he was certifiably sane, would we all say "oh, well then I guess it's okay"?

Lastly, even if people did need him to be crazy, how that make him any less crazy?

See above.

It's not possible to hold the kinds of beliefs that he does and NOT be crazy. The only other option is that he's a troll, but given his history and the tone of his posts in this thread, that option seems unlikely.

Thanks for continuing to prove my points with your assertions.

 

[Beorn]

I think you are bring disingenuous in this thread because your over-identification with "minority" groups who see themselves as persecuted is making you irrational, or at least, inconsistent.

Your objections have shifted from complaining about calling a (now ex-) member crazy, to an (ironic to anyone who knows your views) advocacy of tolerance, to this new dismissal of rationality.

If you're trying to identify me with Valiant, I assure you quite the opposite is taking place. I view many of the views of other posters in this thread to be just as reprehensible as Valiant's views (denial of the murder of millions of babies is a good start). In a way I'm merely trying to explain why I tolerate their reprehensible viewpoints and engage them in argument without calling them delusional. So for me it's all about consistency.

I guess if you are going to dismiss rational argument, there is no point trying to make one, but for the benefit of those who enjoy such things, here is Karl Popper on the paradox (and logical limits) of tolerance:-

There's a difference between dismissing rationality and not thinking it will save humanity.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
...
We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Mr. Popper and I have a very different conception of what tolerance is. Of course I think there are limits to tolerance and most of it depends on jurisdictions and context. I don't have any problem telling JWs to get the hell off my porch. But, as a broad society tolerance should be about treatment of people and not treatment of ideas. Ironically I don't understand what exactly Mr. Popper is tolerant of if he is unwilling to accept people who disagree with him. To tolerate means that there must be something objectionable about that which you are nonetheless willing to co-exist with. What he's really out to do is create a singular society in a very deceitful way.

The whole detour into Valiant's psychiatric health is a macguffin. You know very well that people say "that's crazy!" as a verbal expression of disbelief without anticipating that their words will be taken as a psychiatric diagnosis.

People were very serious about his psychological incapacity.

The things he has been saying are insane - in the sense that they represent views utterly divorced from reality as normally understood. They exhibit a kind of paranoia and militantism that we do not associate with a balanced state of mind. Of course, much of this is context-dependent - what is considered insane in one period of history is considered the norm in others. So we must take into account the fact that he lives in a liberal democracy where those ideas are very far from the norm. Whether he has acquired such views through some personal mental deficiency, cult brain-washing, PTSD, psychotic break or none of those things is really moot to the discussion. The ideas in themselves are insane and poisonous and ought to be treated in that light and not legitimised by according them an attitude of respectful tolerance. Ideas cannot claim the privileges of individuals and individuals cannot claim the right to tolerance without first extending it their fellows. This is part of the social contract that allows us to live side by side without killing each other.

Of course it's entirely possible that Holocaust deniers are sane: the perpetrators and supporters of the Holocaust were, on the whole, sane, after all. It's possible to be clinically sane and to believe or even do crazy things. You are correct that we sometimes suppose sane people to be crazy when they do insane things but this is less because we doubt ourselves (we ought to doubt ourselves more, in fact) and more because we find it impossible to empathise with people who commit or endorse evil acts. Empathy carries within it the same paradox as tolerance, embedded as it is in the same basic psychology of the social animal that is man. Its universality can only extend so far - we cannot empathise with the unempathic, and evil requires the suspension of empathy. Whether someone is "evil" or "crazy" is just a matter of the labels we use to distance ourselves from toxicity. They also carry notions of moral responsibility and reprehensibility but even those are questionable since empathy deficit can legitimately be considered a mental disorder. Fundamentally, all we are doing is defining acceptable norms of behaviour for our species, and drawing lines around / excluding those things which are too poisonous to be allowed to persist.

See my above post.

 

[Ginkgo]

In fact the only thing that threatens humanity's existence at this point is...humanity.

Please explain. I have a feeling you're implicitly referring to an alleged responsibility of ours to overcome any obstacle.

Paradox exposes the weakness of self-referential systems, like logic and language and law.

Right. This was my point. Yet, the tendency to (even vaguely) anthropomorphize inanimate objects that lie in the natural world arises from subjective inclinations, which also compel us to implement justice and establish "rights" for objects (natural conservation, patents for inventions and biological properties like DNA and biologically based medical cures that are easily abstracted by the intellect, rightfully owned household pets that are legally protected, etc.). Our psychological proclivity to "battle", "otherize", and "dehumanize" things that aren't even human lends us the capacity to have complete tolerance for other human beings, based on the premise that we must "otherize" something while accepting another.

Does this make sense?

 

[Coriolis]

I don't think that calling him delusional is equivalent to calling him wrong by morally condemning his beliefs. The reason why I make a big deal out of it is because this has real world impacts on how we treat each other in society. In America on a wider national and statewide level we generally recognize the maintenance of moral viewpoints to be outside the jurisdiction of the state and within the jurisdiction of religion (with the exception, in my opinion, of public schooling).

Do you think laws prohibiting acts like murder, theft, and slander are independent of moral viewpoints? I don't think law and morality can be so easily separated.

However, the care and treatment of the mentally impaired is within the jurisdiction of the state. If we start conflating what is morally wrong with mental instability we very well might be on our way to a clockwork orange dystopian future where the only thing worst than the crime is the prevention of crime.

Of course mental instability and morally reprehensible viewpoints do coincide, but they aren't the same thing and don't necessitate each other.

The care and treatment of the mentally impaired is generally left to individuals/families and private insurance. It is only when someone falls under government jurisdiction for other reasons (e.g. prison, military service, VA) that their mental health care does as well.

From what I understand of the law, a legal diagnosis of insanity requires that the culprit was unable to tell right from wrong when he committed the crime. If his judgment was impaired, he cannot be convicted, but it he was capable of judgment, he is convicted and penalized like any other criminal. The law thus does consider a suspect's mental state separately from the content of his actions.

Perhaps we need a better word here. Someone who denies reality and is obviously not following any kind of rational thought process may still not be mentally ill in any legal or clinical sense. (Notice I have said nothing about values or beliefs.) We might say colloquially, "he's crazy", but what else is there?

 

[Thalassa]

Marm, you seem hung up on the idea that if I think Valiant is mentally ill, it must automatically mean I'm not informed enough about the situation. Consider the possibility that you know no more about it than I do, but have simply come to a different conclusion anyway.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying about paradigms and such, but it sounds like you're suggesting something too relativistic to allow for critical thought.

And for the record, I actually didn't call Valiant psychotic. I said he seemed delusional and paranoid, and those things don't mean someone is psychotic.

Also, while you were criticizing me for doing online psycho-analysis, you were dissecting my thinking using cognitive processes. Come now.

As I've already said there's a huge difference between analyzing personality features or relationship-oriented neuroticism, and actually attempting to say someone is mentally ill.

EVERYTHING that [MENTION=18064]Valiant[/MENTION] says is UTTERLY COHERENT and COMPLETELY IN LINE with posts and threads I've seen on Skadi forum and (less so on the more liberal site) The Apricity. He's more educated and steeped in mythology than the typical ball scratching American on Stormfront, and he mostly speaks like a Skadi member, as far as I can see.

It's an entire moral and mythological construct, based in a foundation of group morality, and loosely tied to European history, as well as the perhaps exaggerated fear response and territoriality in reaction to mass immigration.

I don't care if you did one paper in college. Hang out on some white nationalist forums, and nothing [MENTION=18064]Valiant[/MENTION] says is even a tiny bit insane, or unique. At all.

[MENTION=5789]Beorn[/MENTION] knows precisely what he's speaking of, using abortion as an example of this kind of moral relativism, that people will try to argue is backed by science.

Yes, I think he's an ESTP, with an Fe moral value system and exaggerated by some inferior Ni slight paranoia.

Do I think that he's mentally ill though? Probably not. He's long shown an Fe tendency toward strong political causes, at one point typing himself as ENFP and forming a Socialists of the World Unite user group, as well as naming himself as "Your Local Jesus" in the past.

Him taking up a group, political moral cause is actually quite expected from his personality. It doesn't deviate from his past character. It's certainly not insane, even if you don't like it.

You people kill me.

 

[Beorn]

Do you think laws prohibiting acts like murder, theft, and slander are independent of moral viewpoints? I don't think law and morality can be so easily separated.

No, I've tried to be careful to make the distinction between moral viewpoints and moral actions. Criminal law is fundementally based on morality and forces a particular viewpoint on society in its restrictions of certain actions. However, because of that great power I think the state should be very limited in it's power to restrict the propogation and exchange of moral viewpoints themselves.

The care and treatment of the mentally impaired is generally left to individuals/families and private insurance. It is only when someone falls under government jurisdiction for other reasons (e.g. prison, military service, VA) that their mental health care does as well.

From what I understand of the law, a legal diagnosis of insanity requires that the culprit was unable to tell right from wrong when he committed the crime. If his judgment was impaired, he cannot be convicted, but it he was capable of judgment, he is convicted and penalized like any other criminal. The law thus does consider a suspect's mental state separately from the content of his actions.

It can differ some, but that's basically the idea. My issue is not with the way the law currently is, but the direction it is going in. Like it or not criminal law in America is largely based on a Christian sense of morality and justice and that's how we got the intent components to crimes. However, there are rationalists out there who are trying to get rid of the intent requirements because their focus is to build a perfect society instead of distributing justice. From a standpoint only focused on society it doesn't matter whether someone was insane, negligent, or intentional in killing someone since society suffers the same harm regardless, thus they will all be treated the same way and get the same punishment.

Perhaps we need a better word here. Someone who denies reality and is obviously not following any kind of rational thought process may still not be mentally ill in any legal or clinical sense. (Notice I have said nothing about values or beliefs.) We might say colloquially, "he's crazy", but what else is there?

That's only seems necessary because as you said you don't want to make a value judgement. For me there is no need for another word. I just call it willful ignorant promotion of evil.

Edit: I should clarify that I say "ignorant" I don't mean irrational, unintelligent, or uneducated. I simply mean he is ignoring facts that matter.

 

[lowtech redneck]

That's only seems necessary because as you said you don't want to make a value judgement. For me there is no need for another word. I just call it willful ignorant promotion of evil.

Edit: I should clarify that I say "ignorant" I don't mean irrational, unintelligent, or uneducated. I simply mean he is ignoring facts that matter.

That's the most likely cause of someone embracing malignant conspiracy theories, but mental illness (not to be confused with legal insanity) could also be a factor for some of them, and the latter group may react differently than the former group to various forms of negative social (as opposed to legal) sanction. Like I said, I agree that's its a dangerous habit to view deviant morality and irrational belief systems as indicators of poor mental health, but on a case-by-case basis it should not be ignored as an explanatory factor, either.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

As I've already said there's a huge difference between analyzing personality features or relationship-oriented neuroticism, and actually attempting to say someone is mentally ill.

I think what you're doing is actually more ludicrous. I'm just making a rough guess, putting it somewhere in the general area of mental illness because of some broad but very cliche patterns. You on the other hand act like you can analyze peoples' minds using the processes with mechanical precision. You are simultaneously claiming more detailed and accurate analysis than me while using a far less academically supported basis for doing it.

EVERYTHING that [MENTION=18064]Valiant[/MENTION] says is UTTERLY COHERENT and COMPLETELY IN LINE with posts and threads I've seen on Skadi forum and (less so on the more liberal site) The Apricity. He's more educated and steeped in mythology than the typical ball scratching American on Stormfront, and he mostly speaks like a Skadi member, as far as I can see.

Why on earth should that make me think he isn't mentally ill? Really, you might as well have said "everything he says is in line with his cult! It must be sane!".

It's an entire moral and mythological construct, based in a foundation of group morality, and loosely tied to European history, as well as the perhaps exaggerated fear response and territoriality in reaction to mass immigration.

Even calling it loosely tied to European history might be too much credit. A phrase like "exaggerated fear response" doesn't lend itself well to the notion that these thoughts are perfectly healthy.

I don't care if you did one paper in college. Hang out on some white nationalist forums, and nothing [MENTION=18064]Valiant[/MENTION] says is even a tiny bit insane, or unique. At all.

I mention my paper in college (and as it happens I'm a sociology major seeking a PhD) because you keep talking in a way that implies you are privy to some sort of knowledge that I'm not, that allows you to see the truth about this. I'm assuming you are not privy to any knowledge I'm not. You have to cut that entire pretense, because I will not regard it.

I've not specifically spent time on a white supremacist forum, but I've looked into other forums that are basically made of deviant cliques. I remember how my one friend found this forum that catered to a sort of mix of survivalism and over-the-top skepticism. So it was common knowledge that the moon landing was a hoax, and the government was approaching collapse, and + 90% of the population are sheeple. That sort of thing. Yes, there were many people on this forum (and I'm sure there were many others like it). They supported each other with sort of a mutual sub-culture. They had their own slang. They had their own, fairly internally consistent version of history, their own logical conclusions which kind of made sense if you accepted some of their ridiculous premises, and their own motives which definitely made sense if you accepted their logical conclusions. You know what? I still think they were fucking crazy.

I can see what saying, I just can't see how it means someone like Valiant isn't mentally ill. This is a part you're getting stuck on. I can accepted everything you say here except for the part about Valiant not being mentally ill, and I can't see how we get from point A to point B, even though I can comprehend both point A and B.

I don't think you can Godwin a topic about white supremacists, so let's bring up Hitler. I think by the criteria you're using here, Hitler would not be mentally ill. I personally think Hitler was mentally ill.

[MENTION=5789]Beorn[/MENTION] knows precisely what he's speaking of, using abortion as an example of this kind of moral relativism, that people will try to argue is backed by science.

Yes, I think he's an ESTP, with an Fe moral value system and exaggerated by some inferior Ni slight paranoia.

Do I think that he's mentally ill though? Probably not. He's long shown an Fe tendency toward strong political causes, at one point typing himself as ENFP and forming a Socialists of the World Unite user group, as well as naming himself as "Your Local Jesus" in the past.

Him taking up a group, political moral cause is actually quite expected from his personality. It doesn't deviate from his past character. It's certainly not insane, even if you don't like it.

You people kill me.

We can agree on one thing; it doesn't deviate from his personality or past character. I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove, though.
You and Beorn (and Valiant) are the ones hung up on this whole thing about not liking it. Me and those roughly on my end of the argument are telling you that he's being crazy regardless of applying any value judgments to it.

 

[Ginkgo]

EDIT: That made no sense.

 

[Mole]

Jesus, the Bible and Slavery

Victor Christian abolitionists were paramount to the end of slavery, and it's easy to read the New Testament and see when Jesus came, that there was no longer Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, all are equal in the eyes of God. I'm not sure how you missed that part of the Bible, though yes of course there is historic accounts of slavery in the Bible, because it was a cultural norm.

This sermon was pre-Enlightenment: "John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), archbishop of Constantinople, preaching on Acts 4:32-4:33 in a sermon entitled, "Should we not make it a heaven on earth?", stated, "I will not speak of slaves, since at that time there was no such thing, but doubtless such as were slaves they set at liberty..."

I mean if someone was saying this and using Christianity as a basis in the 300s and 400s (not the 18th century) then perhaps the problem is that human culture changes slowly, even when high ideas are introduced.

I personally think the purest interpretations of the teachings of Jesus have led to the most inclusive and equalizing churches, rather than some of the more severe and hierarchical institutions.

Seventy years before Jesus, Spartacus attacked institutional slavery and defeated the Roman Slave Empire nine times. Jesus could have followed in the footsteps of Spartacus but he decided to say nothing about institutional Roman slavery.

And worse, the Bible supports slavery in Ephesians 6:5 -

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.


And the Bible continues to support slavery in Colossians 3:22 -

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.


And not content with Ephesian 6:5 and Collossians 3:22, the Bible tells us in Peter 2:18 -

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

 

[Bamboo]

If you think about it really, this is all [MENTION=6168]Bamboo[/MENTION]'s fault.

Pssssssh I just asked a question and you just had to go and answer it, didn't you?

Isn't everything?

That means I also get all the credit for anything good that happens, yeah? Cha-ching.

Not all taxidermy is good taxidermy, [MENTION=6168]Bamboo[/MENTION]. Let this be a warning to you:

 

[Thalassa]

I think what you're doing is actually more ludicrous. I'm just making a rough guess, putting it somewhere in the general area of mental illness because of some broad but very cliche patterns. You on the other hand act like you can analyze peoples' minds using the processes with mechanical precision. You are simultaneously claiming more detailed and accurate analysis than me while using a far less academically supported basis for doing it.

Because you cannot, absolutely cannot, assign psychosis to anyone. It can even be difficult for psychologists sometimes to tell the difference between bipolar disorder and borderline personality disorder, just as an example.

I know because I think I've spent significantly more time studying mental illness than yourself. He actually isn't showing symptoms of schizophrenia. You could say his intensity is due to bipolar mania, but it could just as easily not.

Other people in this thread aren't terribly good at it either. I've actually seen people on this forum call me a narcissist, not even realizing that narcissists lack empathy, and I've been thoroughly psychoanalyzed; no traces of narcissism.

There's absolutely no academic basis for you calling someone mentally ill because they embrace a radically different value system than yourself. It would be like you calling Mormons, Quakers, and Hare Krishnas mentally ill.

Good luck with that. Really.

Why on earth should that make me think he isn't mentally ill? Really, you might as well have said "everything he says is in line with his cult! It must be sane!".

White nationalism isn't a cult. LOL. It's not any more of a cult than being an Objectivist or a Tea Partier or believing in Occupy Wall Street is a cult.

Please look up signs of a cult. Thanks.

I'm taking you less and less seriously by the second. Your baby ISFJ is showing.

Even calling it loosely tied to European history might be too much credit. A phrase like "exaggerated fear response" doesn't lend itself well to the notion that these thoughts are perfectly healthy.



I mention my paper in college (and as it happens I'm a sociology major seeking a PhD) because you keep talking in a way that implies you are privy to some sort of knowledge that I'm not, that allows you to see the truth about this. I'm assuming you are not privy to any knowledge I'm not. You have to cut that entire pretense, because I will not regard it.

I am privy to knowledge you are not. You've read about it in books and judged it by your own (apparently faulty and biased) standards, while I've actually spent a great deal of time actually conversing with these people, trying to see their point of view, and studying the resurgence of nationalism in general.

I am privy to information because I've actually talked to the people without treating them like psychotics, I've attempted to compare the sociological phenomenon to civilizations in recent history (very recent history, included, nationalism was popular until about mid-20th century) and I think just studied the subject more specifically and sympathetically than yourself.

I've had to deal with people like you before. One INTP I know has a PhD in Philosophy, specialization in Kant, and he's very uber-brainwashed extremist liberal, he has very intense Fe ethics that mirror the most extremist forms of multi-cultural liberalism, and I also don't take his opinion on the matter very seriously; just because you've gone to graduate school doesn't mean you're equipped to deal with every subject, especially a subject that clearly causes you to have a deep and irrational emotional response.

I've not specifically spent time on a white supremacist forum, but I've looked into other forums that are basically made of deviant cliques. I remember how my one friend found this forum that catered to a sort of mix of survivalism and over-the-top skepticism. So it was common knowledge that the moon landing was a hoax, and the government was approaching collapse, and + 90% of the population are sheeple. That sort of thing. Yes, there were many people on this forum (and I'm sure there were many others like it). They supported each other with sort of a mutual sub-culture. They had their own slang. They had their own, fairly internally consistent version of history, their own logical conclusions which kind of made sense if you accepted some of their ridiculous premises, and their own motives which definitely made sense if you accepted their logical conclusions. You know what? I still think they were fucking crazy.

That's nice. Not that many people are "mentally ill." Don't over assign mental illness to people. It leads to a huge misunderstanding of basic human motives.

I can see what saying, I just can't see how it means someone like Valiant isn't mentally ill. This is a part you're getting stuck on. I can accepted everything you say here except for the part about Valiant not being mentally ill, and I can't see how we get from point A to point B, even though I can comprehend both point A and B.

I don't think you can Godwin a topic about white supremacists, so let's bring up Hitler. I think by the criteria you're using here, Hitler would not be mentally ill. I personally think Hitler was mentally ill.

Hitler was mentally ill. But the entire country of Germany was anti-Semitic at the time. They weren't all mentally ill. Stop generalizing so much, it's really silly.

We can agree on one thing; it doesn't deviate from his personality or past character. I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove, though.
You and Beorn (and Valiant) are the ones hung up on this whole thing about not liking it. Me and those roughly on my end of the argument are telling you that he's being crazy regardless of applying any value judgments to it.

And I'm saying you aren't at all qualified to diagnose it. You don't seem to have an especially adept understanding of the human mind, though I admit you're quite good with political systems.

If he had a psychotic break with reality, his behavior wouldn't follow rationally consistent patterns with his personality.

Have a day, Professor Killjoy.

 

[Thalassa]

Seventy years before Jesus, Spartacus attacked institutional slavery and defeated the Roman Slave Empire nine times. Jesus could have followed in the footsteps of Spartacus but he decided to say nothing about institutional Roman slavery.

And worse, the Bible supports slavery in Ephesians 6:5 -

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.


And the Bible continues to support slavery in Colossians 3:22 -

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.


And not content with Ephesian 6:5 and Collossians 3:22, the Bible tells us in Peter 2:18 -

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

If you'd look more deeply into this Victor, instead of taking those verses out of contexts like a greedy slave owner intent on using them to jusify slavery, the Bible also says if someone slaps you to turn the other cheek and allow them to slap the other. If a man tries to steal your cloak, give him your shirt too. It isn't saying slavery is good, it's saying don't repay evil with evil.

Jesus said there is no differentiation between races or slaves and free men in the eyes of God. It would be like using the turn the other cheek analogy and saying that means the Bible also says you should go around slapping people, or stealing their cloaks.

Furthermore, some people additionally attribute it to a poor translation, which would better be translated in modern times as "servants" rather than "slaves."

 

[Mal12345]

Things would probably be more heated if we were minimizing the number of Christian deaths in various times and places around the world.

Thank goodness we all have permission to speak freely.

And then... he was banned.

 

[Thalassa]

In fact I'd like to be more specific about this to help you out [MENTION=1449]Magic Poriferan[/MENTION].

If something related to white nationalism is a cult, it would be like Neo-Nazi skinheads. That's a cult. They're very exclusive, live together, and often promote violence and actual hatred.

In fact calling YLJ a "white nationalist" is probably incorrect, as he probably considers himself a nationalist specifically of his own country, which most European nationalism takes the form of each country striving to preserve its own country's traditions.

"White" is more of an American construct than a European one, because Spaniards, Southern Italians and Greeks are often darker skinned, yet they still have the bone structure and over-all traits of Caucasians.

When people call themselves white nationalists, it usually refers to some kind of global ideal of preserving things like white skin, blue eyes, blonde hair, and red hair; also straight light brown hair and things associated with European groups racially.

European preservationists are usually more concerned with preserving European culture in the face of mass immigration in Europe, and in some parts of the U.S...often these people aren't at all concerned with skin color or with hating other races in the slightest, but simply with European history and culture, and the potentially marginalizing of people of European descent because of over-zealous "white people are evil" types of liberals. And yes, the "white people are evil" liberals do exist, and that isn't any more healthy than demonizing any other race or culture; as a matter of fact, the Japanese and the Jews have a rich history of being racists, and the Ottoman Empire in Central Asia was the world power long before Western European peoples. There's nothing inherent about European or "white" people that makes them "evil" or any more prone to racism; racism is a human trait that grows out of in-group fears, spanning back to times when people really did have to protect their tribes and lands from warring others.

YLJ seems to be of the more racist variety, and he seems quite taken with the mythology of his culture; neither of these things are insane. Also, saying he's going to marry a European woman and have a lot of white babies and preserve his own culture is in no way "insane." You'll meet people from cultures all over the world who say things like this. I have Asian friends whose parents strongly encourage them to marry other Asians, for example.

If YLJ starts to talk about hurting or killing people of other races, then I'll become concerned that he's joined some kind of sick cult; but even then, he may not be mentally ill, but just a morally reprehensible individual.

There are forms of human paranoia that are not mentally ill; I believe the tendency to be territorial is completely natural, and you see it more in cultures where people value family territory over large scale authority systems, such as "honor cultures."

Calling something mentally ill because you don't like it or don't understand it or find it morally repugnant is simply incorrect. I have long been on a mission to understand why Objectivists believe as they do, why Southern conservative evangelical Republicans believe as they do, and by the same token, have strived to understand the resurgence in European nationalism. Republicans and nationalists tend to share a common bond, and that is essentially fear of their land and traditions being eroded, which isn't an "insane" fear, it's just a different way of seeing the world.

Objectivists on the other hand seem to be more motivated by real selfishness and greed, and I think that's probably the case in extreme forms of white nationalism or neo-Nazi racism, in which case I find them both morally reprehensible.

I also don't take Nico's opinion of YLJ very seriously, as he actually believed I'm so stupid or crazy that I actually believe that my yoga instructors are the only sane people I know.

So overall, I don't feel I'm dealing with a very reliable group of analysts here.

 

[Pseudo]

Can we all just admit that mental ill is a construct in the first place??? We label undesirable differences from normal behavior as mental illness. Is there anything inherently wrong with being bipolar? I'd say no, it just clashes with the was the majority of humanity lives. We label things too far outside of typically behavior "abnormal" and then try to correct those errant behaviors.

I'm not suggesting we shouldn't treat the mentally ill...... Only that squabbling over when it's appropriate to use the term crazy is stupid. Crazy is generally used for abnormal behavior. If someone had gone as far as to label him with a specific disease then we could fight about it. But I me crazy is a pretty relative term.

 

[Beorn]

Furthermore, some people additionally attribute it to a poor translation, which would better be translated in modern times as "servants" rather than "slaves."

Really we should probably develop a more fluid concept of what slavery is anyway. Doing so would keep any group from patting itself on the back too much, and instead focus attention on rooting out modern versions of slavery or slave like practices whether it's H1B visas or usurious advance pay firms in the hood.

 

[Coriolis]

If you'd look more deeply into this Victor, instead of taking those verses out of contexts like a greedy slave owner intent on using them to jusify slavery, the Bible also says if someone slaps you to turn the other cheek and allow them to slap the other. If a man tries to steal your cloak, give him your shirt too. It isn't saying slavery is good, it's saying don't repay evil with evil.

Jesus said there is no differentiation between races or slaves and free men in the eyes of God. It would be like using the turn the other cheek analogy and saying that means the Bible also says you should go around slapping people, or stealing their cloaks.

Furthermore, some people additionally attribute it to a poor translation, which would better be translated in modern times as "servants" rather than "slaves."

The problem isn't what is in the Bible. It is what people do with it.

 

[Mole]

If you'd look more deeply into this Victor, instead of taking those verses out of contexts like a greedy slave owner intent on using them to jusify slavery, the Bible also says if someone slaps you to turn the other cheek and allow them to slap the other. If a man tries to steal your cloak, give him your shirt too. It isn't saying slavery is good, it's saying don't repay evil with evil.

Jesus said there is no differentiation between races or slaves and free men in the eyes of God. It would be like using the turn the other cheek analogy and saying that means the Bible also says you should go around slapping people, or stealing their cloaks.

Furthermore, some people additionally attribute it to a poor translation, which would better be translated in modern times as "servants" rather than "slaves."

Institutional slavery existed right up to 1833 when it was abolished for the first time in history.

Of course you can't believe Jesus was a bad person, so you can't believe he supported institutional slavery. And you can't believe the Bible is a bad book, so you can't believe the Bible supports institutional slavery.

And good heavens, surely you are reaching beyond your grasp by turning slaves into servants.

 

[Mole]

Really we should probably develop a more fluid concept of what slavery is anyway. Doing so would keep any group from patting itself on the back too much, and instead focus attention on rooting out modern versions of slavery or slave like practices whether it's H1B visas or usurious advance pay firms in the hood.

We are talking about institutional slavery, that is, we are talking about the legal ownership of persons protected by the law.

And legal, institutional slavery was abolished for the first time in history by the House of Commons in 1833.

And of course illegal slavery exists today, in particular in the form of people trafficing. And just yesterday Pope Francis I spoke out against illegal slavery in the form of people trafficing.

And indeed the Australian Federal Police investigate people trafficing and refer the matter to our Public Prosecutor to take to our Criminal Courts.