Current Events > Seems like Malcom X gets swept to the side, why don't we celebrate him more?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I4NRulez posted...

Transcendentia posted...

Malcom X having a brief moment of regret before he died doesn't change all the hatred and rhetoric he pumped out into the community. His legacy is one of hatred and racism. Just like Richard Spencer's legacy.

Richard Spencer and his followers would argue that they were born in similar circumstances. They all make the mistake of taking the actions of some and generalizing the entire race because of them.

In other words, it's much harder to find examples of how they're different than how they're the same.

Malcolm X watched his friends and family beaten and brutalized and murdered by white people and still had the intelligence and humbleness to admit he had been wrong his whole life.

Richard Spencer is leading a group of people who claim that the US is theirs and is becoming too "PC" because they cant be openly racist anymore.

To say they are the same is laughable

They're both nationalists and supremacists regarding their own race. They both hated (in Richard Spencer's case he still does) other races and believe them to be inferior.

It doesn't matter why either person believes what they believe. That doesn't change that they're pretty much the same in what they believe.

Edit: And Malcom X recanting before dying is useless. He still filled the community with racism and hatred. Richard Spencer recanting shortly before dying wouldn't change shit about his effect. A person is measured by more than just their last words.
---

Transcendentia posted...

boxington posted...

Transcendentia posted...

That's a pretty weak cop-out excuse, to be honest. Let's not be hypocritical.

how is it a cop-out, when one way from an era, where he saw, what he considered to be, his people being killed, brutalized, etc., with little justice, and the other belongs to a group that has been a literal and political majority for who knows how long?

And Richard Spencer sees what he considers to be all manners of offenses and violence against whites. Both individuals twisted the shit out of things in order to justify their hatred of other races. They didn't develop that hatred by seeing injustices - they try to use perceived injustices in order to justify the hatred they already held to begin with.

I mean, Malcom X believed that whites are failed experiments and inferior to blacks, right? It's literally along the same lines of what Richard Spencer believes about black people.

but the offenses that black people suffered really did happen.

Spencer being delusional doesn't make the two cases similar.

X's dumb religious beliefs, or nah.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Taharqa_ posted...

He was pro-black and unapologetic about it. Those type of people are viewed as a threat.

He didn't advocate violence and explicitly stated that in many of his speeches, BUT he believed in self defense.

nuff said

Just like how the police practice self defense, im glad you understand
---

boxington posted...

Transcendentia posted...

boxington posted...

Transcendentia posted...

That's a pretty weak cop-out excuse, to be honest. Let's not be hypocritical.

how is it a cop-out, when one way from an era, where he saw, what he considered to be, his people being killed, brutalized, etc., with little justice, and the other belongs to a group that has been a literal and political majority for who knows how long?

And Richard Spencer sees what he considers to be all manners of offenses and violence against whites. Both individuals twisted the shit out of things in order to justify their hatred of other races. They didn't develop that hatred by seeing injustices - they try to use perceived injustices in order to justify the hatred they already held to begin with.

I mean, Malcom X believed that whites are failed experiments and inferior to blacks, right? It's literally along the same lines of what Richard Spencer believes about black people.

but the offenses that black people suffered really did happen.

Spencer being delusional doesn't make the two cases similar.

X's dumb religious beliefs, or nah.

He opposed integration, literally believed that white people were devils created by evil scientists, and spread these types of thoughts broadly and generally regardless of whether or not his experiences with white people were subjective rather than objective. He certainly had a rough childhood, but none of that justifies his beliefs and his actions.

MLK had a rough life too, and yet he disavowed violence and didn't spread this type of horse shit. Malcom X's beliefs were not the result of his experiences, they were the result of his inherent racism and hatred of other skin colors.

It's good that he recanted at the end, but that's like Richard Spencer becoming super Christian or some shit - it's fine and dandy but ultimately useless and meaningless considering all the additional racism he's been inspiring.
---

Without Malcom X, one thing I fear is that MLK would have been viewed as even more radical by others. Having Malcom X there I think helped balance it, and he really did give people a message of black pride that arguably, needed to be heard
---

emblem boy posted...

Without Malcom X, one thing I fear is that MLK would have been viewed as even more radical by others. Having Malcom X there I think helped balance it, and he really did give people a message of black pride that arguably, needed to be heard

What do you think about the concept of "white pride"
---

I'm trying really hard to understand what the fuck was so noble or praiseworthy with regards to Malcom X. I really am.

He was literally a black supremacist who believed whites are the failed genetic experiments of an evil scientist. He literally thought blacks are superior to other races, and he was an advocate of violence and hatred and divisive rhetoric.

Where is the noble legacy? What the fuck am I missing? Yes, he had a terrible childhood and so did his family. Yes, he recanted prior to being assassinated. But where exactly does one find something to commend inside all of that?
---

Transcendentia posted...

emblem boy posted...

Without Malcom X, one thing I fear is that MLK would have been viewed as even more radical by others. Having Malcom X there I think helped balance it, and he really did give people a message of black pride that arguably, needed to be heard

What do you think about the concept of "white pride"

White isn't an ethnicity. it's a discriminatory social construct that was meant to create a social hierarchy based off of an arbitrary idealogy of "race."

Irish pride, Italian pride, German pride, etc... all of that is awesome and I support them celebrating their ethnic heritage.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

emblem boy posted...

Without Malcom X, one thing I fear is that MLK would have been viewed as even more radical by others. Having Malcom X there I think helped balance it, and he really did give people a message of black pride that arguably, needed to be heard

What do you think about the concept of "white pride"

White isn't an ethnicity. it's a discriminatory social construct that was meant to create a social hierarchy based off of a arbitrary idealogy of "race."

Irish pride, Italian pride, German pride, etc... all of that is awesome and I support them celebrating their ethnic heritage.

Wow, that's great! I actually agree with you 100%.

But then why do SJWs and people on the left attack "white" people, and white males in particular? What did Malcom X mean then? What do black supremacists mean then? Are you saying they're misguided and that they're unfairly labeling Italians, Irish, German, etc, as all white even though they're not the same ethnicity and people?
---

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

emblem boy posted...

Without Malcom X, one thing I fear is that MLK would have been viewed as even more radical by others. Having Malcom X there I think helped balance it, and he really did give people a message of black pride that arguably, needed to be heard

What do you think about the concept of "white pride"

White isn't an ethnicity. it's a discriminatory social construct that was meant to create a social hierarchy based off of a arbitrary idealogy of "race."

Irish pride, Italian pride, German pride, etc... all of that is awesome and I support them celebrating their ethnic heritage.

Wow, that's great! I actually agree with you 100%.

But then why do SJWs and people on the left attack "white" people, and white males in particular? What did Malcom X mean then? What do black supremacists mean then? Are you saying they're misguided and that they're unfairly labeling Italians, Irish, German, etc, as all white even though they're not the same ethnicity and people?

those are questions for people who buy into the social construct enough to title themselves as such. I'm in no position to speak on behalf of a demographic that I'm not part of.

Sammy Sosa might feel qualified though. maybe you can tweet him.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

emblem boy posted...

Without Malcom X, one thing I fear is that MLK would have been viewed as even more radical by others. Having Malcom X there I think helped balance it, and he really did give people a message of black pride that arguably, needed to be heard

What do you think about the concept of "white pride"

White isn't an ethnicity. it's a discriminatory social construct that was meant to create a social hierarchy based off of a arbitrary idealogy of "race."

Irish pride, Italian pride, German pride, etc... all of that is awesome and I support them celebrating their ethnic heritage.

Wow, that's great! I actually agree with you 100%.

But then why do SJWs and people on the left attack "white" people, and white males in particular? What did Malcom X mean then? What do black supremacists mean then? Are you saying they're misguided and that they're unfairly labeling Italians, Irish, German, etc, as all white even though they're not the same ethnicity and people?

those are questions for people who buy into the social construct enough to title themselves as such. I'm in no position to speak on behalf of a demographic that I'm not part of.

Sammy Sosa might feel qualified though. maybe you can tweet him.

So when someone tells me I have "white privilege" even though I'm Romanian, does that mean they're smoking some nasty shit?
---

Transcendentia posted...

So when someone tells me I have "white privilege" even though I'm Romanian, does that mean they're smoking some nasty shit?

Did the social majority discriminate against you because of your Caucasian appearance?
---

Transcendentia posted...

I'm trying really hard to understand what the fuck was so noble or praiseworthy with regards to Malcom X. I really am.

He was literally a black supremacist who believed whites are the failed genetic experiments of an evil scientist. He literally thought blacks are superior to other races, and he was an advocate of violence and hatred and divisive rhetoric.

Where is the noble legacy? What the fuck am I missing? Yes, he had a terrible childhood and so did his family. Yes, he recanted prior to being assassinated. But where exactly does one find something to commend inside all of that?

Because you arent looking at it with context. He was a voice when there weren't many voices for black people back then. Blacks were constitutionally called less than human and were constantly being beaten,lynched, discriminated against.

He helped lift up a broken and disenfranchised group of people and said we arent worthless. Yes, some of his messages were hate filled and he was essentially brainwashed by the NOI when he was young. He was able to grow as a man and say that he was wrong and whites weren't what he believed them to be. He was then an advocate for black pride and living peacefully with whites.

He was the voice of blacks saying "we arent going to take this lying down anymore". Also you dont have to like either MLK or Malcolm X. They were both very intelligent men and were staples in black american history.

If you isolate pieces of his life yes, he did preach some hateful things but his life as a whole shows the beginnings of where he came and the man he ended up becoming.
---

lydiaquayle posted...

Transcendentia posted...

So when someone tells me I have "white privilege" even though I'm Romanian, does that mean they're smoking some nasty shit?

Did the social majority discriminate against you because of your Caucasian appearance?

You mean when I got bullied and jumped for having white skin when I was growing up in the south side of Chicago?
---

Transcendentia posted...

You mean when I got bullied and jumped for having white skin when I was growing up in the south side of Chicago?

So, NOT the social majority.
---

I4NRulez posted...

Transcendentia posted...

I'm trying really hard to understand what the fuck was so noble or praiseworthy with regards to Malcom X. I really am.

He was literally a black supremacist who believed whites are the failed genetic experiments of an evil scientist. He literally thought blacks are superior to other races, and he was an advocate of violence and hatred and divisive rhetoric.

Where is the noble legacy? What the fuck am I missing? Yes, he had a terrible childhood and so did his family. Yes, he recanted prior to being assassinated. But where exactly does one find something to commend inside all of that?

Because you arent looking at it with context. He was a voice when there weren't many voices for black people back then. Blacks were constitutionally called less than human and were constantly being beaten,lynched, discriminated against.

He helped lift up a broken and disenfranchised group of people and said we arent worthless. Yes, some of his messages were hate filled and he was essentially brainwashed by the NOI when he was young. He was able to grow as a man and say that he was wrong and whites weren't what he believed them to be. He was then an advocate for black pride and living peacefully with whites.

He was the voice of blacks saying "we arent going to take this lying down anymore". Also you dont have to like either MLK or Malcolm X. They were both very intelligent men and were staples in black american history.

If you isolate pieces of his life yes, he did preach some hateful things but his life as a whole shows the beginnings of where he came and the man he ended up becoming.

How did he lift up a broken people? By telling them that whites were failed genetic experiments of an evil scientist? By telling them that blacks are superior to other races? By encouraging and advocating violence and hatred? By threatening that the "era of white people" was coming to an end?

His good message at the end doesn't change that he's like Richard Spencer. I mean, sure, maybe we need Richard Spencer to change his tune at the end of his life in order for them to be a perfect match. But no one is criticizing the good message - it's the evil message that is being criticized.

Someone could easily isolate good sound bits from what Richard Spencer said, but that doesn't change what his actual message and actual beliefs are. Why would you uphold someone like Richard Spencer or Malcom X? Especially when we have MLK?
---

lydiaquayle posted...

Transcendentia posted...

You mean when I got bullied and jumped for having white skin when I was growing up in the south side of Chicago?

So, NOT the social majority.

You can't just tell someone who got a few ass beatings like that they haven't faced problems...it doesn't work like that.
---

lydiaquayle posted...

Transcendentia posted...

You mean when I got bullied and jumped for having white skin when I was growing up in the south side of Chicago?

So, NOT the social majority.

There are different majorities and minorities depending on the microcosm in which you find yourself. You're trying really hard to cling to the concept of "white" as being a valid concept.
---

foreveraIone posted...

You can't just tell someone who got a few ass beatings like that they haven't faced problems...it doesn't work like that.

Yes, comparing a few bullying incidents vs systemic racism on the part of the entire world against a racial minority.
---

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

emblem boy posted...

Without Malcom X, one thing I fear is that MLK would have been viewed as even more radical by others. Having Malcom X there I think helped balance it, and he really did give people a message of black pride that arguably, needed to be heard

What do you think about the concept of "white pride"

White isn't an ethnicity. it's a discriminatory social construct that was meant to create a social hierarchy based off of a arbitrary idealogy of "race."

Irish pride, Italian pride, German pride, etc... all of that is awesome and I support them celebrating their ethnic heritage.

Wow, that's great! I actually agree with you 100%.

But then why do SJWs and people on the left attack "white" people, and white males in particular? What did Malcom X mean then? What do black supremacists mean then? Are you saying they're misguided and that they're unfairly labeling Italians, Irish, German, etc, as all white even though they're not the same ethnicity and people?

those are questions for people who buy into the social construct enough to title themselves as such. I'm in no position to speak on behalf of a demographic that I'm not part of.

Sammy Sosa might feel qualified though. maybe you can tweet him.

So when someone tells me I have "white privilege" even though I'm Romanian, does that mean they're smoking some nasty shit?

until now, you appeared to be completely subscribing to Whiteness, and only now revealing yourself to be Romanian. so I guess it depends on whether or not you consider the ability to exercise that option a privilege. I know not everybody has that option. what do you think?
---

Some are just super desperate for an equivalence. They'll make Mr. Fantastic levels of reaching to make them
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

until now, you appeared to be completely subscribing to Whiteness, and only now revealing yourself to be Romanian. so I guess it depends on whether or not you consider ability to exercise that option a privilege. I know not everybody has that option. what do you think?

I don't believe that whiteness is a legitimate concept. For the reason you mentioned. And I also don't go around telling people I'm Romanian for no reason. I don't consider it "an option" or "a privilege" to tell people I'm Romanian any more than I'd consider it "an option" or "a privilege" for someone from Somalia to tell people that they're actually Somalian.
---

TheoryzC posted...

Some are just super desperate for an equivalence. They'll make Mr. Fantastic levels of reaching to make them

There are more ways in which they are the same than ways in which they are not. And unfortunately they are the same in the most important and devastating ways - their messages of supremacy and hatred are what have left the greatest legacy in their respective communities.
---

I4NRulez posted...

If you isolate pieces of his life yes, he did preach some hateful things but his life as a whole shows the beginnings of where he came and the man he ended up becoming.

Plus Malcolm X's hate was a reaction to the proactive hate his people received from white people. If Malcolm X lived today and had all those views, he'd be just a regular racist jerk. But he lived in pre-60's America where blacks were second-class citizens and seen as subhuman by the whole government and every-day white people acted accordingly. He had family members who were murdered by whites who got away with it. You try feeling rosy about your oppressors living under that.
---

AmericaTheBrave posted...

I4NRulez posted...

If you isolate pieces of his life yes, he did preach some hateful things but his life as a whole shows the beginnings of where he came and the man he ended up becoming.

Plus Malcolm X's hate was a reaction to the proactive hate his people received from white people. If Malcolm X lived today and had all those views, he'd be just a regular racist jerk. But he lived in pre-60's America where blacks were second-class citizens and seen as subhuman by the whole government and every-day white people acted accordingly. He had family members who were murdered by whites who got away with it. You try feeling rosy about your oppressors living under that.

So because some of his family members were killed, somehow his beliefs about all white people being white devils and failed experiments is justified? It might be understandable for him to hate the white people who did that, but how does that change that Richard Spencer preaches the same type of racial supremacy?

If Richard Spencer had family members who were killed by black people, would that justify or in some way explain away Richard Spencer's evil views? Would that warrant people upholding him as some beacon of freedom and truth and nobility?
---

Transcendentia posted...

I don't believe that whiteness is a legitimate concept. For the reason you mentioned. And I also don't go around telling people I'm Romanian for no reason. I don't consider it "an option" or "a privilege" to tell people I'm Romanian any more than I'd consider it "an option" or "a privilege" for someone from Somalia to tell people that they're actually Somalian.

Has any parent of a girlfriend expressed misgivings that she was dating a 'dirty Romanian'? Just about every black man has had to deal with, or known someone who's had to deal with something like that over their lifetime.
---

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

until now, you appeared to be completely subscribing to Whiteness, and only now revealing yourself to be Romanian. so I guess it depends on whether or not you consider ability to exercise that option a privilege. I know not everybody has that option. what do you think?

I don't believe that whiteness as a concept exists. For the reason you mentioned. And I also don't go around telling people I'm Romanian for no reason. I don't consider it "an option" or "a privilege" to tell people I'm Romanian any more than I'd consider it "an option" or "a privilege" for someone from Somalia to tell people that they're actually Somalian.

the people on the money you spend acknowledged, supported and enforced the concept, so it doesn't matter whether or not you believe it, lol. Richard Spencer believes and so does Dylan Roof. try not to disregard reality and context.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

until now, you appeared to be completely subscribing to Whiteness, and only now revealing yourself to be Romanian. so I guess it depends on whether or not you consider ability to exercise that option a privilege. I know not everybody has that option. what do you think?

I don't believe that whiteness as a concept exists. For the reason you mentioned. And I also don't go around telling people I'm Romanian for no reason. I don't consider it "an option" or "a privilege" to tell people I'm Romanian any more than I'd consider it "an option" or "a privilege" for someone from Somalia to tell people that they're actually Somalian.

the people on the money you spend acknowledged, supported and enforced the concept, so it doesn't matter whether or not you believe it, lol. Richard Spencer believes and so does Dylan Roof. try not to disregard reality.

They believe that it's a legitimate concept because they believe that skin is what defines race in a meaningful sense, rather than believing that ethnicity is the real backbone of identity

I don't believe what they believe, and just because they believe in that horse shit doesn't mean that they're right. The people on the money we all spend are on the money we spend because they're notable figures in American history, not because of "whiteness"
---

Transcendentia posted...

There are more ways in which they are the same than ways in which they are not. And unfortunately they are the same in the most important and devastating ways - their messages of supremacy and hatred are what have left the greatest legacy in their respective communities.

No, Richard Spencer is the son of a rich family and is preaching hate about groups of people that are beneath him. He is the oppressor spreading hateful propaganda about the oppressed

Malcolm X is a man who preached hate about the people oppressing him and his people who later came to realize that we were all brothers during a time when blacks were still being beaten and murdered by whites.

And you can look up to both MLK and Malcolm X. They are two different people, you dont have to choose between one or the other.
---

I4NRulez posted...

Transcendentia posted...

There are more ways in which they are the same than ways in which they are not. And unfortunately they are the same in the most important and devastating ways - their messages of supremacy and hatred are what have left the greatest legacy in their respective communities.

No, Richard Spencer is the son of a rich family and is preaching hate about groups of people that are beneath him. He is the oppressor spreading hateful propaganda about the oppressed

Malcolm X is a man who preached hate about the people oppressing him and his people who later came to realize that we were all brothers during a time when blacks were still being beaten and murdered by whites.

And you can look up to both MLK and Malcolm X. They are two different people, you dont have to choose between one or the other.

Malcom X changing his tune in the last chunk of his life doesn't change what he believed and taught for the vast majority of his life. It seems that you're clinging to his last moments way too much.

It also doesn't matter if they're rich or poor or if their family members were killed. I mean, it matters in the sense that it's important. But it doesn't change that they are literally saying the same things about their own race and other races, except with black and white interchanged.
---

lydiaquayle posted...

Transcendentia posted...

I don't believe that whiteness is a legitimate concept. For the reason you mentioned. And I also don't go around telling people I'm Romanian for no reason. I don't consider it "an option" or "a privilege" to tell people I'm Romanian any more than I'd consider it "an option" or "a privilege" for someone from Somalia to tell people that they're actually Somalian.

Has any parent of a girlfriend expressed misgivings that she was dating a 'dirty Romanian'? Just about every black man has had to deal with, or known someone who's had to deal with something like that over their lifetime.

Are you sure you're open to hearing anecdotes about that?
---

Transcendentia posted...

AmericaTheBrave posted...

I4NRulez posted...

If you isolate pieces of his life yes, he did preach some hateful things but his life as a whole shows the beginnings of where he came and the man he ended up becoming.

Plus Malcolm X's hate was a reaction to the proactive hate his people received from white people. If Malcolm X lived today and had all those views, he'd be just a regular racist jerk. But he lived in pre-60's America where blacks were second-class citizens and seen as subhuman by the whole government and every-day white people acted accordingly. He had family members who were murdered by whites who got away with it. You try feeling rosy about your oppressors living under that.

So because some of his family members were killed, somehow his beliefs about all white people being white devils and failed experiments is justified? It might be understandable for him to hate the white people who did that, but how does that change that Richard Spencer preaches the same type of racial supremacy?

If Richard Spencer had family members who were killed by black people, would that justify or in some way explain away Richard Spencer's evil views? Would that warrant people upholding him as some beacon of freedom and truth and nobility?

His personal tragedies alone don't justify it, but that in addition to not receiving justice for them because of racism, not being considered a full citizen of the country, having it actively taught that you're lesser....can you really blame him for falling into a weird cult that tried to give him some validation and him using it to try to uplift his people? Whatever happened to "you can't judge people from the past by modern standards?" You cannot divorce Malcolm X from the circumstances of his times, just like any other historical figure. Richard Spencer is a product of today's more peaceful and egalitarian times. So he's just a racist douche.
---

AmericaTheBrave posted...

Transcendentia posted...

AmericaTheBrave posted...

I4NRulez posted...

If you isolate pieces of his life yes, he did preach some hateful things but his life as a whole shows the beginnings of where he came and the man he ended up becoming.

Plus Malcolm X's hate was a reaction to the proactive hate his people received from white people. If Malcolm X lived today and had all those views, he'd be just a regular racist jerk. But he lived in pre-60's America where blacks were second-class citizens and seen as subhuman by the whole government and every-day white people acted accordingly. He had family members who were murdered by whites who got away with it. You try feeling rosy about your oppressors living under that.

So because some of his family members were killed, somehow his beliefs about all white people being white devils and failed experiments is justified? It might be understandable for him to hate the white people who did that, but how does that change that Richard Spencer preaches the same type of racial supremacy?

If Richard Spencer had family members who were killed by black people, would that justify or in some way explain away Richard Spencer's evil views? Would that warrant people upholding him as some beacon of freedom and truth and nobility?

His personal tragedies alone don't justify it, but that in addition to not receiving justice for them because of racism, not being considered a full citizen of the country, having it actively taught that you're lesser....can you really blame him for falling into a weird cult that tried to give him some validation and him using it to try to uplift his people? Whatever happened to "you can't judge people from the past by modern standards?" You cannot divorce Malcolm X from the circumstances of his times, just like any other historical figure. Richard Spencer is a product of today's more peaceful and egalitarian times. So he's just a racist douche.

I understand why he was attracted to a cult, sure. But does that change that he and Richard Spencer are literally teaching and spreading the same kind of racial supremacy rhetoric? You wouldn't say Richard Spencer is justified or a hero if Richard Spencer's siblings were killed by black people when he was a kid, would you?

MLK was raised in the same circumstances as Malcom X, or at least extremely similar circumstances. Yet he never spread literal black supremacy rhetoric or anti-white rhetoric.
---

Transcendentia posted...

Malcom X changing his tune in the last chunk of his life doesn't change what he believed and taught for the vast majority of his life. It seems that you're clinging to his last moments way too much.

No, i agreed that he was wrong but im saying that has was a reformed man. The reason that he isnt as revered as MLK is BECAUSE of those teachings that he did.

I'm saying that because he was able to reform and admit he was wrong about whites after his life of hardship and oppression from whites during the civil rights movement is a great thing.

Richard Spencer both preached hateful messages, i have not disagreed with you on that. However the context in which those ideologies came about are very different.

Also if Richard Spencer were to change and help the people he is currently trying to disenfranchise now then i would have a great deal of respect for those actions. However he isn't currently trying to do that.
---

Transcendentia posted...

I4NRulez posted...

Transcendentia posted...

There are more ways in which they are the same than ways in which they are not. And unfortunately they are the same in the most important and devastating ways - their messages of supremacy and hatred are what have left the greatest legacy in their respective communities.

No, Richard Spencer is the son of a rich family and is preaching hate about groups of people that are beneath him. He is the oppressor spreading hateful propaganda about the oppressed

Malcolm X is a man who preached hate about the people oppressing him and his people who later came to realize that we were all brothers during a time when blacks were still being beaten and murdered by whites.

And you can look up to both MLK and Malcolm X. They are two different people, you dont have to choose between one or the other.

Malcom X changing his tune in the last chunk of his life doesn't change what he believed and taught for the vast majority of his life. It seems that you're clinging to his last moments way too much.

It also doesn't matter if they're rich or poor or if their family members were killed. I mean, it matters in the sense that it's important. But it doesn't change that they are literally saying the same things about their own race and other races, except with black and white interchanged.

But they weren't on equal footing. That actually does make it different. Not okay, but one is more understandable to the other.
---

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

until now, you appeared to be completely subscribing to Whiteness, and only now revealing yourself to be Romanian. so I guess it depends on whether or not you consider ability to exercise that option a privilege. I know not everybody has that option. what do you think?

I don't believe that whiteness as a concept exists. For the reason you mentioned. And I also don't go around telling people I'm Romanian for no reason. I don't consider it "an option" or "a privilege" to tell people I'm Romanian any more than I'd consider it "an option" or "a privilege" for someone from Somalia to tell people that they're actually Somalian.

the people on the money you spend acknowledged, supported and enforced the concept, so it doesn't matter whether or not you believe it, lol. Richard Spencer believes and so does Dylan Roof. try not to disregard reality.

They believe that it's a legitimate concept because they believe that skin is what defines race in a meaningful sense, rather than believing that ethnicity is the real backbone of identity

I don't believe what they believe, and just because they believe in that horse shit doesn't mean that they're right. The people on the money we all spend are on the money we spend because they're notable figures in American history, not because of "whiteness"

the powers that be had/have the power to enforce such concepts, and many willing participants went ahead and subscribed to these beliefs. the first Black children to integrate into "White" schools are only in their 60's. Trump is in his 70's, lolololol.

Black people have never had any say so over what White people choose to do. the numbers are too low. it takes White people to deal with White people. you're trying to make Black people be held accountable for something they had no part in creating.
---

I4NRulez posted...

Transcendentia posted...

Malcom X changing his tune in the last chunk of his life doesn't change what he believed and taught for the vast majority of his life. It seems that you're clinging to his last moments way too much.

No, i agreed that he was wrong but im saying that has was a reformed man. The reason that he isnt as revered as MLK is BECAUSE of those teachings that he did.

I'm saying that because he was able to reform and admit he was wrong about whites after his life of hardship and oppression from whites during the civil rights movement is a great thing.

Richard Spencer both preached hateful messages, i have not disagreed with you on that. However the context in which those ideologies came about are very different.

Also if Richard Spencer were to change and help the people he is currently trying to disenfranchise now then i would have a great deal of respect for those actions. However he isn't currently trying to do that.

The context is irrelevant because we see that the context did not necessarily create the hateful views or justify them in any way. MLK was the product of the same context yet he was genuinely a great and powerful human being.

Did Malcom X try to help white people after he recanted? Did he try to fix the rhetoric he spread around to millions of people in his community?
---

AmericaTheBrave posted...

Transcendentia posted...

I4NRulez posted...

Transcendentia posted...

There are more ways in which they are the same than ways in which they are not. And unfortunately they are the same in the most important and devastating ways - their messages of supremacy and hatred are what have left the greatest legacy in their respective communities.

No, Richard Spencer is the son of a rich family and is preaching hate about groups of people that are beneath him. He is the oppressor spreading hateful propaganda about the oppressed

Malcolm X is a man who preached hate about the people oppressing him and his people who later came to realize that we were all brothers during a time when blacks were still being beaten and murdered by whites.

And you can look up to both MLK and Malcolm X. They are two different people, you dont have to choose between one or the other.

Malcom X changing his tune in the last chunk of his life doesn't change what he believed and taught for the vast majority of his life. It seems that you're clinging to his last moments way too much.

It also doesn't matter if they're rich or poor or if their family members were killed. I mean, it matters in the sense that it's important. But it doesn't change that they are literally saying the same things about their own race and other races, except with black and white interchanged.

But they weren't on equal footing. That actually does make it different. Not okay, but one is more understandable to the other.

So if Richard Spencer's family member was killed by a black person, you'd consider Richard Spencer a hero and a noble person for trying to preserve his race?
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

until now, you appeared to be completely subscribing to Whiteness, and only now revealing yourself to be Romanian. so I guess it depends on whether or not you consider ability to exercise that option a privilege. I know not everybody has that option. what do you think?

I don't believe that whiteness as a concept exists. For the reason you mentioned. And I also don't go around telling people I'm Romanian for no reason. I don't consider it "an option" or "a privilege" to tell people I'm Romanian any more than I'd consider it "an option" or "a privilege" for someone from Somalia to tell people that they're actually Somalian.

the people on the money you spend acknowledged, supported and enforced the concept, so it doesn't matter whether or not you believe it, lol. Richard Spencer believes and so does Dylan Roof. try not to disregard reality.

They believe that it's a legitimate concept because they believe that skin is what defines race in a meaningful sense, rather than believing that ethnicity is the real backbone of identity

I don't believe what they believe, and just because they believe in that horse shit doesn't mean that they're right. The people on the money we all spend are on the money we spend because they're notable figures in American history, not because of "whiteness"

the powers that be had/have the power to enforce such concepts, and many willing participants went ahead and subscribed to these beliefs. the first Black children to integrate into "White" schools are only in their 60's. Trump is in his 70's, lolololol.

Black people have never had any say so over what White people choose to do. the numbers are too low. it takes White people to deal with White people. you're trying to make Black people be held accountable for something they had no part in creating.

wait a second, do you or do you not believe that "White" and "Black" are legitimate concepts?
---

Transcendentia posted...

So if Richard Spencer's family member was killed by a black person, you'd consider Richard Spencer a hero and a noble person for trying to preserve his race?

Black people arent systemically trying to murder his race. The US government isnt telling the country that its ok because whites arent equal to you.

One black man killing someone in his family is a horrible event. Comparing what happened to blacks during slavery, jim crowe, and the civil rights movement to a single murder is both offensive and you're showing your ignorance.

i've agreed with you that they both spread hateful messages but at this point you are just wrong.
---

Transcendentia posted...

I understand why he was attracted to a cult, sure. But does that change that he and Richard Spencer are literally teaching and spreading the same kind of racial supremacy rhetoric? You wouldn't say Richard Spencer is justified or a hero if Richard Spencer's siblings were killed by black people when he was a kid, would you?

MLK was raised in the same circumstances as Malcom X, or at least extremely similar circumstances. Yet he never spread literal black supremacy rhetoric or anti-white rhetoric.

The only way Richard Spencer would be equivalent to Malcolm X would not just be having family killed by black people, but having said black people escape justice because they had the backing of an anti-white government that actively put white people under black people, constantly favored black people, and segregated white people from black people by giving white people inferior services and infrastructure.

I'm not saying Malcolm X was a good man who never made mistakes, but just boiling him down to a caricature of "racist" is very dishonest when learning about his legacy. How do you feel when liberals paint the Founding Fathers as racists and ignore everything else about them?
---

I4NRulez posted...

Transcendentia posted...

So if Richard Spencer's family member was killed by a black person, you'd consider Richard Spencer a hero and a noble person for trying to preserve his race?

Black people arent systemically trying to murder his race. The US government isnt telling the country that its ok because whites arent equal to you.

One black man killing someone in his family is a horrible event. Comparing what happened to blacks during slavery, jim crowe, and the civil rights movement to a single murder is both offensive and you're showing your ignorance.

i've agreed with you that they both spread hateful messages but at this point you are just wrong.

i'm wrong in saying that they both spread the same hateful messages about racial superiority and violence and hatred?
---

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

until now, you appeared to be completely subscribing to Whiteness, and only now revealing yourself to be Romanian. so I guess it depends on whether or not you consider ability to exercise that option a privilege. I know not everybody has that option. what do you think?

I don't believe that whiteness as a concept exists. For the reason you mentioned. And I also don't go around telling people I'm Romanian for no reason. I don't consider it "an option" or "a privilege" to tell people I'm Romanian any more than I'd consider it "an option" or "a privilege" for someone from Somalia to tell people that they're actually Somalian.

the people on the money you spend acknowledged, supported and enforced the concept, so it doesn't matter whether or not you believe it, lol. Richard Spencer believes and so does Dylan Roof. try not to disregard reality.

They believe that it's a legitimate concept because they believe that skin is what defines race in a meaningful sense, rather than believing that ethnicity is the real backbone of identity

I don't believe what they believe, and just because they believe in that horse shit doesn't mean that they're right. The people on the money we all spend are on the money we spend because they're notable figures in American history, not because of "whiteness"

the powers that be had/have the power to enforce such concepts, and many willing participants went ahead and subscribed to these beliefs. the first Black children to integrate into "White" schools are only in their 60's. Trump is in his 70's, lolololol.

Black people have never had any say so over what White people choose to do. the numbers are too low. it takes White people to deal with White people. you're trying to make Black people be held accountable for something they had no part in creating.

wait a second, do you or do you not believe that "White" and "Black" are legitimate concepts?

they are both arbitrary. Black is just the most "polite" choice of out of all of the other names we were given. imagine the outrage if Black people instead started going by "American," due to being literally made in America.

now, back to my post?
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

until now, you appeared to be completely subscribing to Whiteness, and only now revealing yourself to be Romanian. so I guess it depends on whether or not you consider ability to exercise that option a privilege. I know not everybody has that option. what do you think?

I don't believe that whiteness as a concept exists. For the reason you mentioned. And I also don't go around telling people I'm Romanian for no reason. I don't consider it "an option" or "a privilege" to tell people I'm Romanian any more than I'd consider it "an option" or "a privilege" for someone from Somalia to tell people that they're actually Somalian.

the people on the money you spend acknowledged, supported and enforced the concept, so it doesn't matter whether or not you believe it, lol. Richard Spencer believes and so does Dylan Roof. try not to disregard reality.

They believe that it's a legitimate concept because they believe that skin is what defines race in a meaningful sense, rather than believing that ethnicity is the real backbone of identity

I don't believe what they believe, and just because they believe in that horse shit doesn't mean that they're right. The people on the money we all spend are on the money we spend because they're notable figures in American history, not because of "whiteness"

the powers that be had/have the power to enforce such concepts, and many willing participants went ahead and subscribed to these beliefs. the first Black children to integrate into "White" schools are only in their 60's. Trump is in his 70's, lolololol.

Black people have never had any say so over what White people choose to do. the numbers are too low. it takes White people to deal with White people. you're trying to make Black people be held accountable for something they had no part in creating.

wait a second, do you or do you not believe that "White" and "Black" are legitimate concepts?

they are both arbitrary. Black is just the most "polite" choice of out of all of the other names we were given. imagine the outrage if Black people instead started going by "American," due to being literally made in America.

i wouldn't be outraged
---

#136 had content that you neglected in order to ask a question. do you concede to my point in that post?

also it doesn't matter if you personally wouldn't be outraged. you don't have the power to do anything but possibly influence your friends/family/peers. it takes White people to deal with White people.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

#136 had content that you neglected in order to ask a question. do you concede to my point in that post?

also it doesn't matter if you personally wouldn't be outraged. you don't have the power to do anything but possibly influence your friends/family/peers. it takes White people to deal with White people.

no, i don't concede that your simplistic representation of how society works is accurate
---

Transcendentia posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

#136 had content that you neglected in order to ask a question. do you concede to my point in that post?

also it doesn't matter if you personally wouldn't be outraged. you don't have the power to do anything but possibly influence your friends/family/peers. it takes White people to deal with White people.

no, i don't concede that your simplistic representation of how society works is accurate

interesting.
---

Transcendentia posted...

i'm wrong in saying that they both spread the same hateful messages about racial superiority and violence and hatred?

Yes
---

Transcendentia posted...

boxington posted...

Transcendentia posted...

boxington posted...

Transcendentia posted...

That's a pretty weak cop-out excuse, to be honest. Let's not be hypocritical.

how is it a cop-out, when one way from an era, where he saw, what he considered to be, his people being killed, brutalized, etc., with little justice, and the other belongs to a group that has been a literal and political majority for who knows how long?

And Richard Spencer sees what he considers to be all manners of offenses and violence against whites. Both individuals twisted the shit out of things in order to justify their hatred of other races. They didn't develop that hatred by seeing injustices - they try to use perceived injustices in order to justify the hatred they already held to begin with.

I mean, Malcom X believed that whites are failed experiments and inferior to blacks, right? It's literally along the same lines of what Richard Spencer believes about black people.

but the offenses that black people suffered really did happen.

Spencer being delusional doesn't make the two cases similar.

X's dumb religious beliefs, or nah.

He opposed integration, literally believed that white people were devils created by evil scientists, and spread these types of thoughts broadly and generally regardless of whether or not his experiences with white people were subjective rather than objective. He certainly had a rough childhood, but none of that justifies his beliefs and his actions.

MLK had a rough life too, and yet he disavowed violence and didn't spread this type of horse shit. Malcom X's beliefs were not the result of his experiences, they were the result of his inherent racism and hatred of other skin colors.

It's good that he recanted at the end, but that's like Richard Spencer becoming super Christian or some shit - it's fine and dandy but ultimately useless and meaningless considering all the additional racism he's been inspiring.

you have the benefit of being able to see the flaws in his views in hindsight.

imagine living in an X supremacist society, where your people don't have the same rights as the majority, that your history in that society started it chains, and has been bloody ever since. that your interactions with the majority have rarely went well, and often with conflict.

would you really believe that peace and integration could happen like that? there was no history of it happening.

if you didn't, and continued seeing your people brutalized, wouldn't it make sense that maybe your people might have a better chance separately?

I understand disagreeing with his views, and even considering then abhorrent, but it's dishonest to make some kinda parallel with X and Spencer
---

boxington posted...

Transcendentia posted...

boxington posted...

Transcendentia posted...

boxington posted...

Transcendentia posted...

That's a pretty weak cop-out excuse, to be honest. Let's not be hypocritical.

how is it a cop-out, when one way from an era, where he saw, what he considered to be, his people being killed, brutalized, etc., with little justice, and the other belongs to a group that has been a literal and political majority for who knows how long?

And Richard Spencer sees what he considers to be all manners of offenses and violence against whites. Both individuals twisted the shit out of things in order to justify their hatred of other races. They didn't develop that hatred by seeing injustices - they try to use perceived injustices in order to justify the hatred they already held to begin with.

I mean, Malcom X believed that whites are failed experiments and inferior to blacks, right? It's literally along the same lines of what Richard Spencer believes about black people.

but the offenses that black people suffered really did happen.

Spencer being delusional doesn't make the two cases similar.

X's dumb religious beliefs, or nah.

He opposed integration, literally believed that white people were devils created by evil scientists, and spread these types of thoughts broadly and generally regardless of whether or not his experiences with white people were subjective rather than objective. He certainly had a rough childhood, but none of that justifies his beliefs and his actions.

MLK had a rough life too, and yet he disavowed violence and didn't spread this type of horse shit. Malcom X's beliefs were not the result of his experiences, they were the result of his inherent racism and hatred of other skin colors.

It's good that he recanted at the end, but that's like Richard Spencer becoming super Christian or some shit - it's fine and dandy but ultimately useless and meaningless considering all the additional racism he's been inspiring.

you have the benefit of being able to see the flaws in his views in hindsight.

imagine living in an X supremacist society, where your people don't have the same rights as the majority, that your history in that society started it chains, and has been bloody ever since. that your interactions with the majority have rarely went well, and often with conflict.

would you really believe that peace and integration could happen like that? there was no history of it happening.

if you didn't, and continued seeing your people brutalized, wouldn't it make sense that maybe your people might have a better chance separately?

I understand disagreeing with his views, and even considering then abhorrent, but it's dishonest to make some kinda parallel with X and Spencer

How do you explain MLK then? He went through the same type of society and absolutely refused to accept this temptation regarding violence and black supremacy.

And do you really think Malcom X had a statistically relevant representation of whites as a race or people? He should've realized that the majority of whites are not like that.
---