i’m not using the death of a white supremacist to make kissy faces at fucking people who spent the last four years calling for the death of trans people.
He was often called a white supremecist in debates and always challenged people to tell him what he had ever said that reflected that, and no one ever had an answer. He was a lot of things, but I don’t really think he was that. Do you have an answer? If he was, I would want to know, fuck racists.
Culture has nothing to do with White Supremecy or any other form of racism or “scientific racism”. We can indeed have good and bad cultures; this being entirely subjective to individual opinions. Cultures are a social outcome, not a genetic one.
People can “define white Supremecy” however they like, though it’s already well defined, so their personal definition may be confusing or discredit any other views they may share.
I don’t think Charlie Kirk was a white supremecist at all, but there’s many different ways of being a total cunt. At a certain point of cuntiness, it really doesn’t matter if he was one or not.
This is literally how dog whistles work, my friend. They don’t say what they’re saying, out loud. They hide it behind a veneer of rationality, that they think prevents certain people from hearing what they’re saying, while throwing a giant wink at the people that “get it”.
When a white supremacist talks about “Western culture being superior to other cultures”…they are talking about “white culture”.
Yeah, but people that aren’t white supremecist also say that. White supremecist from non-westrrn cultures say the same of their culture instead. White supremecist enjoy and emerse themselves into other cultures without it impacting their position of being genetically superior.
What you’re trying to explain is called cultural chauvinism and it’s as related/unrelated to many other things as it is/isn’t to racial ideologies.
No dog whistles here, just already very established and understood stuff.
Plus, it’s White Supremecy here. There’s so much already there to work with. There’s no need to apply assumptions onto it and sell it as a new package.
Cultural chauvinism is the belief that one’s own culture is superior to others, often leading to prejudice against different cultural groups. This concept is commonly discussed in the context of international relations and communication, highlighting how such attitudes can affect interactions between nations and ethnicities.
A subset of…
Chauvinism is the unreasonable belief in the superiority or dominance of one’s own group or people, who are seen as strong and virtuous, while others are considered weak, unworthy, or inferior The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes it as a form of “excessive and unreasonable” patriotism and nationalism, a fervent faith in national excellence and glory.
Which is not the same as…
White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to those of other races.The belief favors the maintenance and defense of any power and privilege held by white people. White supremacy has roots in the now-discredited doctrine of scientific racism and was a key justification for European colonialism.
I know that cultural chauvinism exists and what it is.
That doesn’t change the fact that Kirk used the language of cultural chauvinism as code for racial chauvinism and that that’s exactly what his followers understood it as. AKA a classic dog whistle.
It’s okay to redefine what White Supremecy is just so we get to call someone one?
This is cultural chauvinism or cultural imperialism; it is not white supremecy or any racial superiority ideology for that matter. These are two different, well-defined, and bad things. You don’t have to try force them together to make a bad thing. It’s already done. You win. Being either one or both is bad.
But it’s not exactly good to shift the goal posts to try frame a person you didn not like into being something you want them to be but cannot confirm that they were. That’s my point.
i’m not using the death of a white supremacist to make kissy faces at fucking people who spent the last four years calling for the death of trans people.
also fucking glad i blocked gavin on bsky
He was often called a white supremecist in debates and always challenged people to tell him what he had ever said that reflected that, and no one ever had an answer. He was a lot of things, but I don’t really think he was that. Do you have an answer? If he was, I would want to know, fuck racists.
It depends on how you define “white supremacy”. He definitely held the view that western (white) culture is superior to other cultures. He just also proclaimed that “racism is bad” at the same time, in order to pretend that he was making these points from a reasoned perspective.
Culture has nothing to do with White Supremecy or any other form of racism or “scientific racism”. We can indeed have good and bad cultures; this being entirely subjective to individual opinions. Cultures are a social outcome, not a genetic one.
People can “define white Supremecy” however they like, though it’s already well defined, so their personal definition may be confusing or discredit any other views they may share.
I don’t think Charlie Kirk was a white supremecist at all, but there’s many different ways of being a total cunt. At a certain point of cuntiness, it really doesn’t matter if he was one or not.
This is literally how dog whistles work, my friend. They don’t say what they’re saying, out loud. They hide it behind a veneer of rationality, that they think prevents certain people from hearing what they’re saying, while throwing a giant wink at the people that “get it”.
When a white supremacist talks about “Western culture being superior to other cultures”…they are talking about “white culture”.
Yeah, but people that aren’t white supremecist also say that. White supremecist from non-westrrn cultures say the same of their culture instead. White supremecist enjoy and emerse themselves into other cultures without it impacting their position of being genetically superior.
What you’re trying to explain is called cultural chauvinism and it’s as related/unrelated to many other things as it is/isn’t to racial ideologies.
No dog whistles here, just already very established and understood stuff.
Plus, it’s White Supremecy here. There’s so much already there to work with. There’s no need to apply assumptions onto it and sell it as a new package.
Nope. Simply not true.
Which would indicate that it IS about white supremacy rather than culture. You’re negating your own stupid point.
You’re REALLY reaching, buddy…
🙄
Fixed it for you.
A subset of…
Which is not the same as…
Here you go… https://www.routledge.com/Cultural-Chauvinism-Intercultural-Communication-and-the-Politics-of-Superiority/Ibelema/p/book/9780367710033
You would also do well to pay attention to the events of Daryl Davis.
On top of books and many studies on this, there’s also documentaries and reports if your attention span so needs this.
Or, you know, it’s all bullshit and you know best!
A sponge is wet. The ocean is wet. Therefore sponges are oceans. And saltesc is dumb.
I know that cultural chauvinism exists and what it is.
That doesn’t change the fact that Kirk used the language of cultural chauvinism as code for racial chauvinism and that that’s exactly what his followers understood it as. AKA a classic dog whistle.
Truest statements from you yet.
https://oxford-review.com/the-oxford-review-dei-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-dictionary/cultural-racism-definition-and-explanation/#%3A~%3Atext=Cultural+racism+refers+to+the%2Cvery+fabric+of+societal+culture.
Delusional, discredited.
It has nothing to do with culture but they hate multiculturalism… Use that heavy thing above your shoulders bud.
That’s not true at all. Some do, plenty don’t. Multiculturalism is unrelated.
https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1931897306166763631
Ya huh, keep telling yourself that.
What’s your point?
It’s okay to redefine what White Supremecy is just so we get to call someone one?
This is cultural chauvinism or cultural imperialism; it is not white supremecy or any racial superiority ideology for that matter. These are two different, well-defined, and bad things. You don’t have to try force them together to make a bad thing. It’s already done. You win. Being either one or both is bad.
But it’s not exactly good to shift the goal posts to try frame a person you didn not like into being something you want them to be but cannot confirm that they were. That’s my point.
We don’t need to, we’re talking about him and he’s a white supremacist.
Idiot.
deleted by creator