@ucarr @Baden @Banno @Vera Mont @Amity Thanks for reading and your kind words! Also particulary Vera and Amity for arguing my case better than I could myself and the obvious charitable reading of my essay. Since there weren't any specific questions or critiques in your posts (or I forgot about them), the following tries to engage what I considered relevant comments or critiques of the essay. That's of necessity shorter than this paragraph but my gratitude to you is no less for it.

On that note, I'm only replying once, hoping to clarify some questions that arose and comments I thought were relevant enough to engage with. What I wanted to say is in the essay itself and I don't feel like revisiting it after having already spend so much time on it.

On another note, I would really have liked to have seen some comparisons with Popper's views. I would be really interest see the author's thoughts on what Popper had to say in regards to 'Open Society And It's Enemies'. There seems to be a direct parallel to what is being discussed in this essay. — I like sushi

I agree there are surface-level parallels with The Open Society and Its Enemies. Popper also warns against ideologies that, under the guise of grand principles (historicism, in his case), end up justifying authoritarianism.

That said, I have to confess: I don't like Popper as a political philosopher. While his falsification theory of science was groundbreaking, his reading of Plato is a caricature.

Even so, my essay shares some of his concerns. Especially the idea that freedom can collapse into its opposite but I approach it from a different angle. Popper was reacting to collectivist historicism; I’m critiquing an atomized conception of liberty that pretends to transcend power while covertly depending on it.



Thanks for this constructive reply. There’s a lot I agree with here and some clarifications I should probably have made more explicit.

First, you're right that Nozick often writes hypothetically and Anarchy, State, and Utopia is also a thought experiment. Nozick presents entitlement theory as a hypothetical and he’s explicit that it’s not a comprehensive vision for society. But my disagreement runs deeper than just how others have appropriated him; I’m also directly critiquing the structure of Nozick’s theory itself.

Here’s where I take (the most) issue: Nozick’s framework assumes that we can assess justice in holdings without attending to the prior social and historical processes that shape how property, status and capacity emerge. Even granting his “justice in acquisition” and “justice in transfer,” the theory has virtually no resources to address how initial entitlements are formed in practice. How power, history, violence and exclusion precondition what looks like a “voluntary” exchange. Nozick acknowledges the importance of historical injustice but provides no account of how to redress it. He offers no guidance how far back to look, what counts as evidence, if we're going to pay reparations or redstribute, who should pay and who should benefit. Justice in rectification is just a rest category for anything that doesn't fit justice in acquisition or transfer - which, unfortunately, is where almost every transaction lies.

The Wilt Chamberlain example is meant to dissolve patterned principles of justice by showing how free choice can lead to inequality. But it does so without questioning the background conditions that make some people Wilt Chamberlain and others anonymous ticket buyers. That’s not just an omission, it’s a profound limitation. Because once you bracket social embeddedness and historical injustice, the resulting model will systematically obscure domination as long as it's mediated by consent.

So I’m not just saying “people took Nozick too literally.” I’m arguing that even in its ideal form, entitlement theory builds in an atomism that cannot adequately account for structural injustice. And when that framework is imported into political discourse, it becomes a rhetorical shield for power: inequality becomes merit, and domination becomes choice.

I do take your point that my treatment of Nozick is compressed (and perhaps a little sharp). A more academic version of this argument would give him a more thorough and charitable reading. But I stand by the critique in its essence: not just of how he’s used but of what he proposes. And I believe it's a critique that becomes more urgent as these frameworks, however hypothetically introduced, bleed into real-world moral reasoning.

It's hard to see how a focus on three non-philosophers who the author dislikes amounts to anything more than ad hominem. A philosophy essay needs to avoid such strong reliance on ad hominem. The piece is more than that, but it is bogged down by it. — Leontiskos

I would agree if the essay would hinge too heavily on the critique of these public figures. I tried not to focus on personalities but principles, tried to connect their (sometimes implicit) assumptions to underlying principles and ideas and don't think I show particular disdain for them individually. From an academic standpoint, it is indeed not a purely technical exploration of liberty, statehood and liberal theory and can accept you would find their inclusion as distracting or even unrigorous but ad hominem seems to be a step too far.

I chose Musk, Trump and Peterson not because they are philosophers in the strict sense but because their public rhetoric, popularity and institutional power make them emblematic of a wider cultural phenomenon. Their behavior and speech illustrate how the celebration of personal liberty often relies on invisible structures of power and how individualism can slide into authoritarianism under the banner of freedom. The critique is of the logic they embody; not merely the personalities involved.



Thank you for your detailed and generous engagement. A few clarifications might help explain where I'm coming from and where I agree with you.

You're absolutely right that the figures I chose (Musk, Trump, Peterson) are not systematic philosophers. My intent was not to treat them as such, but to use them as emblems of a broader cultural logic: one where radical individualism is performed, celebrated and weaponized in ways that conceal structural dependency and authoritarian drift. They're not my targets as people; they’re case studies. They represent styles of political and cultural power that dominate media and public imagination and through which certain ideological patterns become visible. If anything, they are incoherent, and that’s part of the point: incoherence is a feature, not a bug, of the spectacle of liberty masking domination.

That said, you're absolutely right to point out that this ideological terrain is more fractured than the piece could cover. You may very well be correct about a "civil war" within the Right. I'm alas not fully aware of it in a way you seem to express it. I also think that it happens to be outside the scope of my essay. It isn't called Why the Right is Authoritarian, but rather about a paradox (that quite frankly annoys me): how certain forms of liberty, when stripped of institutional humility or shared obligation, collapse into their opposite.

Your observations about appeals to tradition, aesthetics and thymos are appreciated. I also agree that progressive liberalism shares in this paradox and I gesture toward that in the piece’s broader implication: that liberty, detached from collective structure and moral obligation, becomes cannibalistic wherever it shows up (Power is everywhere: when we call the Other "stupid" or "uninformed" or "voting against their interest" we are creating a basis for denying them a say by not having to take them seriously). I chose this specific style of right-wing libertarianism because it's particularly visible right now, steeped in structural contradictions and shapes global discourse disproportionately.

Thanks again for giving the piece such serious thought. I'd be interested in reading your version of this argument; perhaps one that dives deeper into the tragic tension between the individual and the polis in pre-modern sources. That’s a tradition worth recovering, not just referencing.

Thank you for reading and engaging with my essay. While thoughtful, I believe you're mislocating emphasis. It isn't a take-down of Nozick or about Musk ,Trump or Peterson but an attempt to expose a structural paradox.

Let me clarify the core argument, which I think is getting lost:

The paradox is not simply hypocrisy (people saying one thing and doing another), but that the ideological celebration of radical self-sovereignty requires the very collective institutions it claims to transcend. When “freedom” is defined solely as freedom from obligation, without a shared framework of norms, mutual responsibilities or institutional integrity, it ends up needing coercion to enforce itself, and thus paradoxically invites authoritarianism.

As for the use of the term "radical individualism"; you’re right that it’s deliberately strong. I'm not critiquing all forms of individualism or libertarianism but a specific tendency to treat the individual as metaphysically prior to society, as if freedom is a natural state threatened by interference rather than something cultivated through shared norms and institutions. That distinction matters because much of our political rhetoric today still draws from that myth, even when it’s incompatible with real conditions.

Finally, regarding evidence: you’re right that I don’t present detailed dossiers on Musk, Trump or Peterson, but that wasn’t the goal. This isn’t a biographical critique. It’s a philosophical argument illustrated by these public figures whose rhetoric aligns with the paradox. If I rewrote the piece for a more academic audience, I’d replace them with abstract types. But that would lose the essay’s urgency and resonance with the world we actually live in. Additionally, these figures are well known so a dossier might not even be necessary. Decisions decisions...

I think the tension you’re pointing to actually reflects the rhetorical arc of the essay, rather than a contradiction.

The goal wasn't to deny that radical individualism has an internal logic. On the contrary, I tried to lay out its metaphysical and moral premises clearly so that I could then examine how they play out in practice. The essay argues that while this worldview presents itself as a coherent political philosophy, it functions more like a performance: a posture of self-sovereignty that depends on the very collective conditions it denies.

So yes, I acknowledge the appeal and apparent coherence of radical individualism but only to show how it collapses under its own weight when mapped onto real-world politics, institutions and relations. The central claim is that this supposed coherence is theatrical: it has rhetorical force but neither philosophical nor political durability.

I hope that clarifies the structure.

No shit Sherlock. That one was easy! Had a hell of a time trying to cram my argument in 5000 words, the original when I was done was over 8000 words. Once I get started I don't shut up, which is why I try to not start. Ever.

Interesting that nobody has anything to say about the blatant breach of international law. There's no sensible interpretation that this was self defence. The only thing Israel does (every time) is prove the hypocrisy of the West thereby undermining the legal order countries agreed to follow. Or course, as the strongest bully in the area, they are very much in favour of no legal order so that they can finalise their conquest of Palestine. As long as the USA is strongest, the same benefits apply to them: they can do whatever they want.

It makes me wonder how much this really is strategy to get rid of the fetters of international law.

You don't have to go to war for it, just pass the BBB.

https://on.ft.com/4jN2FJr @ssu and so on...

That's not a basis for ignoring them. — Hanover

Sonetimes it is. It's called civil disobedience and that can sometimes be a duty if a law is outrageous enough.

I'd call it bad ethics to wait for other people to decide on what you should think of a certain event, law or statement.

What about the 14th Amendment and a child's right to be reared by both their parents? Looks very much like a right to family life. Especially where the illegal immigrant parent has social security number and pays taxes, the failure of previous governments to act on deportation has effectively contributed to such an immigrant having a family life in the USA. This person did not hide.

Just read US citizens were effectively deported because both their parents were. That's impossible where I live.

I see the USA has signed several treaties guaranteeing right to family life but never ratified it.

help me out with what is the law in the USA here. No statutory limitations? No reasonable expectation that if a government doesn't deport you for x number of years that you are "safe"? Under human rights laws (at least in Europe) you acquire an independent right to stay in a county due to having a close connection with it if you have lived there long enough (in NL, especially for younger kids and teens it's about 6 years). If you're married or have US citizen kids I'd expect the right to family life gives you grounds for entry and therefore makes no sense to deport. Does any of it apply or something similar to it?

I asked perplexity.ai what the difference were in the Obama deportations and those of Trump. Interesting enough to post it:

How is what Trump us doing now different?

Trump’s current deportation approach differs from Obama’s in several key ways:

- **Nationwide Interior Enforcement:** Trump has expanded expedited removal to apply to undocumented immigrants arrested anywhere in the U.S., not just near the border[2][4][6]. This means ICE can rapidly deport people found anywhere in the country who cannot prove they have lived in the U.S. for over two years[2][4][6].

- **Sensitive Locations Targeted:** ICE is now authorized to conduct raids at previously protected places like schools, hospitals, and places of worship—locations where enforcement was generally avoided under Obama[1][6].

- **Mass Detention and Daily Quotas:** The Trump administration has set daily arrest quotas and dramatically increased detention capacity, aiming to deport up to one million people annually—more than triple previous records[6][1].

- **Use of Local Police:** Trump has rapidly expanded agreements allowing local law enforcement to act as immigration officers, increasing the likelihood of arrests during routine policing[6].

- **Legal and Policy Changes:** The administration has invoked laws like the Alien Enemies Act, threatened to use military force, and pursued criminal charges against those aiding undocumented immigrants[1][5].

- **Targeting Broader Groups:** Trump’s policies have targeted not only undocumented immigrants but also activists, legal residents, and even U.S. citizens in some cases, with reports of mistaken detentions and deportations[1][6].

- **Promotion of Self-Deportation:** New tools like the CBP Home app encourage voluntary departure, with added penalties for noncompliance, such as fines and revocation of Social Security numbers[6].

In summary, Trump’s approach is more aggressive, nationwide, and less focused on recent border crossers, with expanded enforcement powers, broader targets, and fewer protections for sensitive locations compared to Obama’s policies[1][2][6].

Citations:
[1] Deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_in_the_second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump
[2] How Trump Has Targeted New Groups for Deportation https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/21/us/trump-immigration-policy.html
[3] Protecting The American People Against Invasion - The White House https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american-people-against-invasion/
[4] Ten Harmful Trump Administration Immigration and Refugee Policies https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/02/20/ten-harmful-trump-administration-immigration-and-refugee-policies
[5] Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_policy_of_the_second_Donald_Trump_administration
[6] The First 100 Days of the Second Trump Administration https://immigrationforum.org/article/the-first-100-days-of-the-second-trump-administration-key-immigration-related-actions-and-developments/
[7] Inside Donald Trump's Mass-Deportation Operation | TIME https://time.com/7291757/trump-deportation-ice-el-salvador/
[8] From Day One, Trump's Immigration Agenda Has Grown More ... https://www.aclu.org/news/immigrants-rights/from-day-one-trumps-immigration-agenda-has-grown-more-extreme

It's not a simple issue.

From a purely legal and sovereign perspective: Yes, appropriate and reasonable in itself. A sovereign nation has laws governing immigration, and enforcement agencies like ICE are tasked with upholding those laws. From this viewpoint, raids are a direct action to enforce immigration laws and control borders, which is considered a legitimate function of a government. (Sending in national guard and marines is inappropriate and unreasonable and possibly illegal - but different discussion).

From an economic and pragmatic perspective: The appropriateness and reasonableness of ICE raids become far more debatable when considering their significant economic impact. Data shows that undocumented immigrants are deeply integrated into the U.S. economy, filling critical labor gaps, paying billions in taxes and fueling consumer demand. Mass deportations, as a result of such raids, would cause severe economic contraction, significant job losses (even for U.S.-born workers), and a substantial reduction in tax revenue. From this viewpoint, the policy is unreasonable.

From a humanitarian/social perspective: The human cost of raids, including the separation of families and the disruption of communities, raises serious ethical and social questions. While enforcing laws, the methods and consequences can have profound social impacts that I personally find inappropriate or unreasonable from a humanitarian standpoint.

Whether ICE raids are "appropriate and reasonable" depends heavily on the lens through which you view the situation. If the primary focus is on legal enforcement and border control at all costs, they might be seen as appropriate. However, if the focus shifts to the broader economic health and social fabric of the nation, their appropriateness and reasonableness become highly questionable due to the demonstrably negative consequences.

@ssu Reports of sabotage in Sweden. Probably by Russia. Fits the string of increasing sabotage. Leiden university is keeping track of it. See here: https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/news/2025/01/research-europe-increasingly-targeted-by-russian-sabotage

includes raw data and infographics.

I try to make it a rule not to engage with you because you're one of the worst persons I know, morally and intellectually. Considering the level regularly revealed in the politics threads; that's quite a feat.

Anyhoo, calling it “amazing” that people are protesting mass arrests and military deployment on domestic soil is a revealing choice. What’s truly amazing is how quickly you conflate basic decency with criminal complicity, as if the only two political positions left in America are “support Trump” or “defend MS-13.” What marvelous analysis... :snicker:

Nobody’s out there waving machetes for drug cartels. They’re standing in the streets because federal agents are snatching people at bus stops and supermarkets like it’s a dystopian lottery, because Marines are marching through Los Angeles like it’s Fallujah, and because a sitting president decided that immigration enforcement now comes with Humvees. People are protesting that; not gang violence, not borderless anarchy but state violence masquerading as law and order.

And let’s dispense with the flag nonsense. The idea that the presence of a Mexican flag at a protest is somehow proof of national betrayal is the sort of paranoid grievance that thrives only where empathy has been starved and racism abounds. Immigrants often love both the country they came from and the one they live in. Try holding two thoughts in your head at once, it won’t kill you.

As for the violence: if you can’t distinguish between a crowd of grieving families and a few people breaking windows after dark, you’re not trying to understand, you’re just trying to discredit. But we already know where your allegiance lies. That has been clear for years.

This isn’t about Trump, it’s about what’s being done in his name. When the state sends in troops to control its own population and people object, that isn’t “anti-Trumpism,” it’s the last gasp of civic duty. If your first instinct is to cheer for the troops rather than ask why they’re pointing rifles at citizens, then quite obviously you don't want a country - just supremacy.

@Author,

I really like this if not only for the reason that I barely get in touch with this sort of subject. I think it's ambitious and maybe that is one of the only critiques I'd level against it; it might be too ambitious for the space afforded to it.

It's fun to approach Dante as a philosopher instead of just a Poet. At the same time, the Divine Comedy is not a systematic treatise. Is the author over interpreting what he/she sees as philosophical claims rather than poetic symbolism that have varying interpretations? I'm not knowledgeable enough to tell but I do wonder.

After dealing with Hume; shouldn't the writer have spent some time on Kant's practical reason that seems to be a reformist model of reason? There may be other more modern writers who made similar attempts.

@Tobias This subject is right up your ally. Be sure to read it!

For normal Americans, rioters flying foreign flags and burning American ones is not a cause to rally around. — BitconnectCarlos

I'm not sure why flag waving or burning flags is the decisive factor. For "normal people" once a government stops representing basic values and the rule of law such as habeas corpus maybe burning a flag is cathartic or symbolic enough for them to distance themselves from the government they disagree with. Of course, normal Americans are too stupid so probably they think like you do and have uncritical allegiance to bullshit.

The idea speech does not affect the world and that all these sovereign individuals can just ignore it, is devoid of fact. Speech can be abusive and cause harm. Child abuse can consist of solely verbal abuse. There are plenty of examples of bullied kids committing suicide. To then have people argue words don't harm and that it is apparently the person's choice to commit suicide is a prime example of victim blaming.

There are people who post on an internet forum with the understanding it is "private"? :lol:

Free speech absolutism clings to a libertarian ahistorical fantasy: that speech is just noise until someone acts on it. That words, unlike swords, don’t wound unless the listener chooses to be harmed. But if that were true, the entire structure of society would collapse.

Let’s be clear: if speech had no effect unless acted upon, there would be no marketing, no contracts, no propaganda, no religion, no constitutions, no militaries, no politics and no hierarchies. None of these function without speech triggering behavior. If we were truly sovereign individuals, immune to linguistic influence, then there would be no need to sell, convince, threaten or command. We wouldn’t bother with law or leadership. Hell, we wouldn’t be arguing on this forum.

The claim that speech is harmless unless someone physically acts on it doesn’t merely misrepresent speech, it ignores the entire architecture of human society. Words structure our relations, direct our choices, create obligations and incite movements. Speech is action. Every dictator, advertiser, preacher and policymaker knows this. Only the “free speech absolutist” pretends not to.

What's generally so boring about these discussions though, is that, even if we accept that speech is powerful, the real issue isn’t whether it should be “free”. It’s who gets to speak, and who gets heard. Most free speech debates are built on a false assumption: that everyone already has a platform, and harm only begins when someone’s voice is removed from it. That’s not how platforms work.

People aren’t born with megaphones. They’re given them, or more often, denied. Platforms are political spaces. They are curated, moderated, algorithmically sorted and profit-driven. This discussion shouldn't be about when to restrict speech but how to ensure equal access to being heard.

Remember this post? You started talking to me remember? I replied and asked why you're focusing on the least likely candidate to be widely available and is also the least mature technologically speaking. I just get dumb shit after that. So fuck you.

You didn't need to spoon-feed me anything. This is my topic. The question being, why, what, according to Nasa/Sandia Labs, is a promising approach to the climate and ecological crisis, has gone ignored for the past 40 years? — karl stone

I believe geothermal is promising, I believe EGS is much more promising that SCGT. I've laid out why. You've given me nothing in return other than repetitions devoid of thought, engagement with my points or facts. SCGT had to compete with other energy sources. It doesn't look like it can compete even with other applications of geothermal energy, which I've tried to discuss and you just repeatedly avoid or ignore. If you cannot engage with a person's post and devolve in repetition the only conclusion is you don't understand it.

I'm not negative about geothermal I'm negative about your ability to discuss the subject.

I'm not negative. I simply don't have time for someone's myopic bullshit when I even spoonfeed him information to get a grip on reality.

So you haven't done the calculations and have no clue what you're talking about. Excellent. Nice wasting time on you. Bye.

Great.Show me the calculations.

Despite the criticisms you can level at the content of the essay, I like the fundamental approach free of any other works and reminds me of attempts I made when I was much younger (teens, early 20s) and unburdened by all the philosophy I read since then.

The fact you haven't conceded it just shows how little you've actually looked into it. Not something to be proud of. And no, I don't need to make a lot of assumptions. Here's some facts.

Supercritical geothermal (SCGT) introduces several risks that are either absent or significantly less pronounced in Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). There's:

1. Thermally induced seismicity and fault reactivation. The thermal gradients for EGS are far lower compared to SCGT.
2. Material challenges. SCGT requires drilling and equipment that has to withstand much higher temperatures and pressures. supercritical water is highly corrosive.
3. Risk of encountering magma or volcanic gases is much higher as well.
4. SCGT is very likely to reach depth where rock becomes ductile, making reservoir creation even more challenging.
5. The heat and pressure can lead to rapid changes in rock properties and permeability which creates risk of wellbore collapse, equipment failure and difficulties with reservoir management.

Each risk has to be managed and therefore increases costs and therefore USD per Mwh will increase. Many of these risks will cause production to stop if they materialise which has huge ramifications for access to energy.

Furthermore, EGS technology is designed to be deployed in a wide range of geological settings, not just areas with naturally occurring high-temperature hydrothermal systems. It works by artificially creating reservoirs in hot dry rock, which is abundant in many regions worldwide.

This makes EGS more geographically flexible and potentially scalable across many countries and regions, provided there is sufficient subsurface heat at accessible depths.

SCGT, on the other hand, requires access to much deeper and hotter subsurface resources, specifically targeting the supercritical water regime.

Such conditions are only found in certain volcanic or tectonically active regions, which are geographically limited compared to the broader applicability of EGS.

There are also several known benefits to decentralised energy production as compared to centralised, making EGS preferable as well.

- By relying on multiple, local sources, communities become less vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions, price spikes or geopolitical tensions.
- Power is generated closer to where it is used, reducing the energy lost during long-distance transmission, which is typically up to 8% in centralized systems.
- Decentralized systems make it easier and quicker to integrate.
- Local ownership and management of energy resources create jobs, stimulate local economies and give communities greater control over their energy supply.
- By reducing transmission and distribution costs and enabling local energy trading, decentralized models can lower energy bills, especially in remote regions.
- Microgrids and distributed systems can operate independently during grid outages, providing critical services with reliable power.

In summary, decentralized energy production improves reliability, resilience and sustainability.

SCGT has its place, if it becomes viable. For now it's in the pilot phase but in any case it will never work as the primary source of energy production due to the risks and limitations involved.

Nah. You were late so obviously don't have enough time. Philosophy is too hard for me so I didn't join this time.

It's June 1st. Where are the submissions of posters with too much time on their hands?

compared to what? — karl stone

EGS.

more expensive than what? — karl stone

EGS.

Solving the climate and ecological crisis is not an immediate need. It requires a little forethought, because only a functioning global economy can do this. If we think only in terms of the immediate, waiting until solving the climate crisis becomes an immediate need, it will be too late. — karl stone

This is just handwaving. You remind me of counterpunch. Words devoid if basic facts. If you think this is the way forward, calculate it. I sincerely doubt the feasibility of going for the most expensive solution is workable. I've pointed to the one that is most likely to be feasible.

So EGS doesn't require transformers? — karl stone

If EGS works you can drop it anywhere into the existing grid and simply use existing transformers.

Having very large power plants introduces requirements on the grid that don't currently exist and require a disproportionate investment, where the power plant itself is already much more expensive. Just the lead time for transformers is currently 4+ years. It's therefore economically and logistically unsound to meet our immediate needs. It's much better to integrate such power plants into the existing grid, which is what makes ESG attractive.

We don't need to be a tier 1 civilisation to resolve the climate crisis.

You're focusing on the most expensive and least likely to be scalable in all areas. Why?

The science had only significantly changed with respect to ESG.

It was. But the science has changed since then. Particularly in the area of ESG. Enhanced Gheothermal Energy stimulates geothermal permeability, usually by pumping water or other fluids, such as carbon dioxide, to fracture rock and create an artificial reservoir in geological settings lacking transport fluids or adequate rock permeability.

Still not commercially viable but could be. See https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/754200/IPOL_BRI(2023)754200_EN.pdf

I don't need to defend shit because there's no genocide. You'd rather follow the interpretation of a murderous idiot than sensible South Africans just so it fits in your racist worldview.

Also note that the farmers killed are predominantly not white. So there's that. Sigh.

All irrelevant drivel when there's no genocide going on and the chant has been adjudicated by local judges with much better understanding of local culture and history than white nationalists across the US and EU as not being literal but metaphorical. But please don't let facts get in the way of being a racist douchebag.

There's ample evidence of it. What's inappropriate is leaving it uncontested and unnamed.

It's racism when blacks benefit and therefore we should ignore colour and it's racism when whites are victims because they're white and colour is therefore relevant.

I will be the first to admit I've contradicted myself twice before breakfast but this is just ridiculous.

No, everybody needs to learn to stand up to racist bullshit by calling it out for what it is and calling those people who lap it up as gospel for the insane confirmation bias they carry around.

We have a poster who insists he doesn't see colour and has a whole shtick about the evils of affirmative action and whatnot but when it's whites allegedly being killed all of a sudden it's relevant they're white.

The other one defends Israeli-committed genocide round the clock and whines about a white genocide in SA that doesn't exist because what? He's tricked in being an asshole? Fuck that.

I agree. Yet the case of South Africa shows just how rare are politicians like Nelson Mandela and how easy it is for the populists to spread their hate in every country thanks to social media rolling out mass propaganda for anyone willing to pay. — ssu

Fixed that too.

This is just the nonsense ramblings of Trump. But seems to have hit a sweet spot among some white nationalists and racists. — ssu

I fixed it for you.

Ignorance is no excuse. — NOS4A2

Indeed it isn't. What's your excuse for peddling lies then if not ignorance of almost everything that matters?

Your post is unhinged and unbecoming of a moderator. — BitconnectCarlos

Calling out white nationalists and racists is never unbecoming for anyone. Particularly a moderator.

instead of being so dumb as extrapolating from anecdotal evidence maybe study the subject first.

Boers are only 5% of the population. Even if only 1 in 6 killed are white, that's still 3x disproportionate. — BitconnectCarlos

Excellent. Only 1% of total murder victims in South Africa are white.

White. Nationalists. Racist. Fucks. The both of you.