PDA

View Full Version : How to Tackle Arguments Against Ethnic/Racial Pride?



Schmetterling
Saturday, May 3rd, 2008, 06:34 PM
We are often being called names such as "racist, nazi, hater" and the like, simply for loving our people and caring for the future of our nations. These words are used in a derogatory manner against our people. How do you think those of us who don't fit the label should defend ourselves from these slurs? I think elaborating some intelligent strategies could serve us well in future, especially if we want to debate with the mainstream people and help them see the sense of our views.

I would appreciate any ideas on this topic.

P.S. Since this is a userful topic, could it be made a sticky?

Thanks in advance.

Vingolf
Saturday, May 3rd, 2008, 07:35 PM
We are often being called names such as "racist, nazi, hater" and the like, simply for loving our people and caring for the future of our nations. These words are used in a derogatory manner against our people. How do you think those of us who don't fit the label should defend ourselves from these slurs?

Good question. There is no obvious antidote to this hitherto extremely efficient anti-Germanic strategy, based on so-called "guilt by association" - i.e. attempts to discredit an idea/person/cause based upon disfavored people or groups associated with it.


Several strategies have been tried out:

1) Clearing oneself of the accusations (ineffective)

2) Showing that the Nazis were not "that bad" (pointless)

3) Showing that your antagonist/accuser is even worse than the Nazis (usually impossible)

"Guilt by association" appeals to people's irrational feelings, effectively switching off logical thinking. It would probably be necessary to redirect people's arsenal of negative irrational feelings focusing on something else than the Nazis. This has been tried out with the Communists after 1989, so far inconclusively.

Bärin
Saturday, May 3rd, 2008, 08:16 PM
Here's my opinion... don't know if it fits the standards of intelligent hehe. :-O

Usually if the opponent accuses you of racism because you criticise another race or make a generalisation, give examples of when it's done against Europeans. But don't make it so obvious by saying right from the start that there is a double standard. Don't lay out the conclusions before him, try to get him to make them. Ask him if he thinks that the Israelis who said they don't want to be addressed in German because it was the language of the nazis were racist towards Germans. Or if the people who made generalisations about Austria and nationalsocialism because of this child abuser in the news were racist. If he says yes, then exploit the double standard issue: why have some people the right to be racist and others not? Why are some people allowed to be discriminated agaisnt and others not. If he says no, then explain criticism should be allowed of all races, because otherwise it's racist to privilege only some against criticism. It worked with some people. :-O

BeornWulfWer
Saturday, May 3rd, 2008, 08:51 PM
If someone has called you a racist or any other name, they have clearly lost and are resorting to shock comments to try and recover ground.

As stated above, making references to double standards is usually a quick way to show them up.

Burgundian
Saturday, May 3rd, 2008, 09:04 PM
Several strategies have been tried out:

1) Clearing oneself of the accusations (ineffective)

2) Showing that the Nazis were not "that bad" (pointless)

3) Showing that your antagonist/accuser is even worse than the Nazis (usually impossible)

There are two other options. Ignore them. That usually works.. with side effects. Or use their irrational name calling against them. Why do they get to call you a slur that has evil connotations but you can't even intelligently discuss race/immigration whatever without slurs? That works wonders, actually. Either puts them into attack mode or shuts them up. All only my experience, however.

Loddfafner
Saturday, May 3rd, 2008, 09:41 PM
It would be helpful to show that it is possible to build a preservationist milieu that is not a magnet for homicidal maniacs. Consider the cotc as a worst-case scenario.

It would also be helpful to show that nationalism need not lead to those irresolvable boundary disputes that have led not to the strengthening of societies but to their total collapse. I have in mind all those petty conflicts that collectively formed the tinderbox of Europe in 1914. I also have in mind the fate of Bosnia as a serious negative lesson for any nationalist movement.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, May 4th, 2008, 06:29 AM
After being called one of these names say: "Now that you have voiced your personal hatreds, can we return to the issue? Or just say: " Is that the real issue for you?" Or do what I do: " ...and you are a Zionist or do you deny being a Zionist?" Maybe you have never noticed but nobody likes claiming Zionism as their own AND nobody likes admitting that they are or are not a Zionist. Turn Zionism into a dirty word with their hesitation on the issue.

SwordOfTheVistula
Sunday, May 4th, 2008, 07:54 AM
Yeah, you just have to avoid being sucked into the trap of arguing about 'nazis' etc. Point out that they are engaging in name-calling and distracting from the issue, declare that what happened 70s years ago on the other side of the planet has no relevance to modern day issues, and return back to the original topic (immigration, affirmative action, crime, whatever). If the other person insists on continuing to try to talk about nazis/hitler/holocaust etc while you are are trying to talk about something people actually give a shit about, then the other person is going to look like the raving nutcase.

The goal of bringing up nazis etc is to change the debate from one you can usually win (most people have at least some innate preservationist instinct) to one you will almost certainly lose and look bad while doing so even if technically correct, for example debating the death toll and method of death of Jews in central Europe during WWII. So, if you stay on message and don't let them lead you down this dark alley of political rhetoric, you will be ok.

Also, remember it is not the raving leftist lunatics we are trying to convince, but all the more normal people in the middle who have fallen under the influence of the true believer multiculturalists.

Boernician
Sunday, May 4th, 2008, 08:02 AM
When called a racist I answer I am sorry your going to have to define what you mean by racist. if I get the "you know racist" answer. I answer I am afraid that word has become so politicized and used so promiscuously I really need your definition.
If they refuse,well then I am sorry I cant debate someone who will not even present thier position, only call me names. Others I have used sorry, I don't know what you mean by even the word race are we talking taxonomic differences, haplogouops mtd or what. Thats Stops them right there.
On being called a Nazi,Sir or madame I was born after the war and my father served in the Ailed forces.
Are you a white supremacists?, no I do not believe in white people,never been to whiteland and can not speak Whitish,how about you?
I ask Do you believe in culture.
Good I am a Culterist then I think it is important to appreciate your own culture and defend it against attackers who would denigrate its accomplishment its people,heritage and ancestors.

Rik
Sunday, May 4th, 2008, 11:56 AM
I just tell them to shut up , be proud of their native culture and look what horrible things their leftist friends did .

Thunner
Tuesday, May 6th, 2008, 02:23 AM
Point out that not to be racially aware is in many parts of the world foolish and dangerous to one's person.

Being racially aware is about self-preservation ("self" applying also to one's kin).

Mouse Shadow
Monday, June 21st, 2010, 12:42 PM
I'm aware of this problem, so here's the remedy. I'll give you a bit of background why this works so effectively too.

We're called racists, simply because we are white and no other reason. Well, I'm afraid most people don't actually get the reason why it's said in the first place. Ie, to belittle us & (our race), to make us feel inferior to the 'speaker' and/or of their race/(warped ideal). (There should now be in your head Instant acknowledgement that the speaker/accuser is indeed racist.)

In fact, I don't actually believe anyone, I mean any Germanic is actually 'racist'. Why, because we aren't, we are 'Racial Seperatists', not racists.

A Racial Seperatist is actually the opposite of a racist, because we believe all races should be kept safe, protected, away from harm and the extent of damaging each others culture.

After all, we are well known for being far too kind, helping other people beyond our own borders in times of trouble. Ie, We are not racists.

A Racial Seperatist gives ultimate freedom to the beliefs, people and culture of all races so long as they do not destroy, genocide or damage the integrity of others. We also firmly believe that the special talents, traits and the beauty of all races should be enhanced and encouraged and never lost or to become extinct. After all, we like the exotic-ness, mystery and charm of alien cultures, but not when it's crammed in our face. Cultures are obliterated when forced to compete.

I know in my heart people of Germanic origin are not bad nor racist, we are fair minded and kind, but when pushed too far we come together to fight. So you will find the speaker to be racist, not you. Because you will notice that they squeal racist, Nazi etc to generalize you as 'evil', which in sociopathic terms means, someone evil is acusing you of their crime.

When that occurs, all gloves are off. They are the Nazi's ;) They are the racists. They are the haters. At that point, the louder you scream RACIST, NAZI, HATER back at them, even though they may be black, all the better. People will automatically take YOUR side. :D Why? Because of a special neural rule. Which Mouse Shadow will keep squeaky silent about. :D

Anyway, truth is, in war, if you've been rendered defenceless, it's time to take the weapons they have and use against the assailant.

PS, also going psychotic, or perhaps a screaming psychotic, like a spew, will help too. :D Just a thought.

So when they try to lay into me by saying, "Are you a RACIST!!!"

Calmy say, "No, I'm the opposite of a racist, I'm a racial seperatist." (That will blunt their first assault)

When they say, "What's that?"

Give them a speech on freedom to all, lah di dah, all people's should be free to express their opinion, and blah di blah, and not held by coward-pissants who squeal racist at the first sign of a white person, blah di blah, Are you a racist!?!?! No really, are you a racist?!!!! You are aren't you!!! RACIST F*CKING PIG!!! RACIST N~A~Z~I P~I~G!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And this is where the you should keep going Barbarian berserk, because after all, Germanics invented the Barbarians. :)

So, works great on jews too, they call each other Nazi's all the time. There's two types of Nazi, the honourable German soldier vs the jew propaganda version. I scream the later one at any oppurtunity.

I hope we all can shreik that one day. :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup

So, keep it in mind, be like a powder keg with a hair trigger. For the LOUDER your argument, the more valid it is. :D

And guess what, if you get an audience, great, maybe then you can start preaching about how Germanics are hard done by, and kept under a cloud of shame by racist Nazi losers like, (Insert derogatory expletive here while pointing at the speaker too). (Remember, it's not about making sense, it's about making a scene! You want an audience!!! Trust me!!!)

So anyway, that works, plus it gets you attention for being heroic. No offence to any Nazi friends or friends of real Nazi's on Skadi, but I only use that word now becuase the jews have slandered it to death, best to paint it back onto those propaganda jew sociopaths in the first place. By the way, jews are the ultimate 'white' supremacists (without being white), they stuck that label on us too!!! You can find out about that prop-g trick too. It was a myth started by them to force Brits and the world to fight Germany.

Anywoo, I'll tell you another little Mouse Secret, when the cameras start rolling, and you start squealing the truth, people will notice. :D And that's what we want. Kee Kee!

Sigurd
Monday, June 21st, 2010, 01:00 PM
I'm not bothered about the "Nazi" label, I am only bothered about the "Neo-Nazi" label, as it assumes that there was something like a caesure between "Old-Nazis" and "Neo-Nazis", which is nonsense as we are talking about a timeless worldview; especially not an invention of the 20s, and certainly not something different/new nowadays. And even more nonsense as we enjoy especially good terms with those alive in the old days, we regularly visit a woman in her advanced days who was an adult before the war ended. ;)

William Frost
Monday, June 21st, 2010, 01:49 PM
What I love about this site is that everyone gets a fair chance. Whether it be to explain themselves or make a point. I have never seen any open racial biggotry spoken towards anyone. It seems as if everyone is well composed and very intelligent. I am not a Nazi nor do I always agree with them, but disagreements always make for good conversation if both parties can keep their composure. You learn something new every day, you just have to take the time. As whites period, we are going to be called racists, when it is really the others that try to keep us living in fear. They are the racists and biggots, not us. We are a proud people and we can never let that change.

Sågverksarbetaren
Wednesday, July 28th, 2010, 11:06 AM
As a swede, i do not often have to deal with immigrants and multiculturalists saying that whites simply has to accept mass-immigration and multiculture, becuase "we" colonised Africa and America and so on, and that it therefore is "payback-time" for them now.
The reason for this, of course, is that Sweden historically haven`t been a nation that has colonised other continents (at least not in a high scale). So for me, WHEN that argument comes up, it is easy to wave that away and saying "well, Sweden has not colonised other continents, invalid argument".
But as i have grown more aware, and have become more and more sympathetic towards my fellow germanics (and not only my own country and it`s fate), i don`t believe it is acceptable for me to "leave you behind" like that.
What i`m curious about is how you people who are dutch or english for example, deal with those "payback-time"-arguments? What arguments do YOU use? And to you americans, afrikaaners and australians; how do you respond to those arguments?
Of course, I don`t think that this "revenge"-mantra is valid, but i do imagine that you "colonists" often come in contact with immigrants, liberals and leftists saying things like this. And that makes me wonder what you respond?

//Rickard Melkersson

Méldmir
Wednesday, July 28th, 2010, 11:27 AM
Even though I'm Swedish like you, I'd say: Accepting a pay-back or revenge is very weak, the world doesn't work that way. If you do something that is not good for other people, it's not natural to take a hit back "just because it is fair". Sure, one could apologize and make even, but to totally accept the other person doing the same thing to you is just weird. This is a very Christian mindset, that seem to be common among all, liberals and leftists.

Still, one can debate whether colonialism really was that bad for these countries. My argument above is just if it truly was that bad that multiculturalists claim.

Neophyte
Wednesday, July 28th, 2010, 07:32 PM
The answer is really easy: I do not see how that is in my interest.

Ediruc
Thursday, July 29th, 2010, 02:28 AM
I would refute them by saying we brought civilization to them. Simple as that.

Hauke Haien
Thursday, July 29th, 2010, 03:32 AM
The answer is really easy: I do not see how that is in my interest.
That is a good start, but you will end up having to explain why it really is that simple, because, surely, you want the world to be a place where happy hippos roam the rivers and for that it is absolutely necessary to work for the success of outside populations rather than your own.

I think where this effort frequently fails is that people argue against rather than for something. "No, I do not think a united world squeezed into my country is possible". "No, I am not a racist." "No, I strenuously oppose ideology X and that's why I will advertise its ideas for the next 30 minutes".

I think the best way to deal with negativity is a short refutation and then immediately shift gear and present what is behind the other door, the wonderful YZ things that really could be achieved instead, precisely because wrong assumption X is absent, and focus on the unequivocally positive aspects of that.

For example, one could happily admit that the loss of a native way of live and a tightly-knit community among the colonised populations is to be lamented and you would not want that to happen anywhere else. Then proceed to paint the prettiest picture of the way things used to be among your own people, you know, in The Golden Age, and because it already existed in the past, it is possible to recreate and reformulate your interlocutor's favorite part of that in the here and now. Talk about that in detail, draft a plan of that as if it were to be put into action on the very next day and encourage him to get involved in your planning.

Wynterwade
Thursday, July 29th, 2010, 06:05 PM
This is a really good question. First, let me answer your question, then I'll talk about history.

Answer-

I would just argue that...
1) The people who are to blame for colonizing the Americas and Australia and South Africa have been dead for hundreds of years. Just as you cannot blame modern day Americans for Slavery, modern day Germans for the Holocaust you cannot blame modern day Europeans for Colonization.

2) The way of life for Europeans, values, culture, Christian morals is becoming too diluted by immigrants that do not integrate and live by the same standards. You should tell them that the west should adopt Japanese style immigration levels in order to preserve these morals, values, culture etc. (which would be great).


History concerning native Americans...
- Their population was not known before Columbus. Estimates on their original population differ by 9,000%. The higher estimates are usually the ones used by people to say "Americans killed 99% of Native Americans". If you account for the lower estimates, and disease it comes out to something like 5% were killed by warfare. Most of which was inter-tribal warfare among each other!

What is not talked about however, (when I look at my own family tree) is that many Native Americans banded together and would raid white towns, killing, raping and scalping white settlers. I remember one particular family in my tree where 6 family members were killed by Native Americans- including a baby. And they are not the only family in my tree where this has happened to. This is the reason why the Whites decided to either integrate the Native Americans or to send them West to Indian Territory so they wouldn't kill more settlers. I think it's a bit hypocritical the way that schools today teach the hardships of Native Americans but never of whites.

What did Europeans bring to America? Well we are the richest country on the world, have a very high standard of living. What would it look like if whites never came over? It would probably look like Mexico or Guatemala and be in chaos with crime murder and cartel gangs.

Hope you found that interesting.

Neophyte
Sunday, August 1st, 2010, 05:26 PM
What did Europeans bring to America? Well we are the richest country on the world, have a very high standard of living. What would it look like if whites never came over? It would probably look like Mexico or Guatemala and be in chaos with crime murder and cartel gangs.

This is the only part of your post that I find a little bit offensive, and let me explain why. It is very simple: I refuse to justify my existence to anyone else, and as a people we should do the same.

What the Europeans brought to America? Themselves and their genes, not much else. The reason that Mexico and Guatemala look like shit? That they are full of cholos. Period. Do you think that the cholos south of the border will be sitting around admiring the civilization in the north and thinking "Better not go there and spoil things by being ourselves. Let's just sit here and admire it from afar."? That argument will never, ever, work. Do you think that the Mexicans regret that they are alive rather than having Mexico populated by Whites?

When we start to justify ourselves we are opening up for the ideas such that we exist to serve mankind at large and that our existence must serve such a higher purpose to have justification. And as I see it, that is Judaism for the Goyim.

Horagalles
Sunday, August 1st, 2010, 07:56 PM
As a swede, i do not often have to deal with immigrants and multiculturalists saying that whites simply has to accept mass-immigration and multiculture, becuase "we" colonised Africa and America and so on, and that it therefore is "payback-time" for them now. That argument is simply silly in various ways.
I assume that the lefties think colonialism/imperialism was wrong. Are they trying to tell us two wrongs make one right or what?

The White colonialists went mostly to countries, which they homesteaded and cultivated making them habitual for humans that then could live with a higher standard of living. The non-Whites now flooding into Europe can't come up with anything remotely like this.

If Non-Whites may do this, because it is in their own interest, why can't White people do it in the same way.




The reason for this, of course, is that Sweden historically haven`t been a nation that has colonised other continents (at least not in a high scale). So for me, WHEN that argument comes up, it is easy to wave that away and saying "well, Sweden has not colonised other continents, invalid argument".
But as i have grown more aware, and have become more and more sympathetic towards my fellow germanics (and not only my own country and it`s fate), i don`t believe it is acceptable for me to "leave you behind" like that.
Sweden has colonized Finland, the Baltics and parts of Northern Germany and Poland at a time;). But of course that weren't Germanic "non-White Countries". And for lefties using that arguments, it shows how stupid they really are. But by now you should have learned not to expect any logic from them.



What i`m curious about is how you people who are dutch or english for example, deal with those "payback-time"-arguments? What arguments do YOU use? And to you americans, afrikaaners and australians; how do you respond to those arguments?
Of course, I don`t think that this "revenge"-mantra is valid, but i do imagine that you "colonists" often come in contact with immigrants, liberals and leftists saying things like this. And that makes me wonder what you respond?...I'd give it a good laugh. White people managed to homestead larger parts of the world, because of their superior abilities in many fields. All parts of the world had to be colonized at a time, except for Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden:D. So the anti(White)-colonialists arguments don't hold any water whatsoever.

Huginn ok Muninn
Wednesday, January 5th, 2011, 12:59 AM
When we went out into the world, we had a choice of what to do with the savages we found there. We were the superior in weapons and technology and the tactics of warfare. We had knowledge of medicine and farming, which they did not.

Nature dictated that we annihilate the weaker human subspecies and supplant them. We did not do that, because we worshiped a God of compassion... and look where we are now. The aliens can never be expected to be grateful or appreciative, they can only be expected to look at us for what we are... a bunch of suckers.

Juthunge
Wednesday, January 5th, 2011, 01:21 AM
with immigrants and multiculturalists saying that whites simply has to accept mass-immigration and multiculture, becuase "we" colonised Africa and America and so on, and that it therefore is "payback-time" for them now.
I'd tell them, if they have the "right" to come here and take revenge we have every right to drive them back into the sea. Their ancestors have been too weak to keep their own lands, so what? I don't even want their land now.

They may try to apply some kind of "Lex Talionis". Let them try. I'll keep the land of my fathers. This is were we flourish. This is my land and they may take it from my cold dead hands.

Hilderinc
Wednesday, January 5th, 2011, 02:57 AM
The British and Americans established sovereign nations for their slaves/blacks, Sierra Leone and Liberia, respectively. Too bad few have taken advantage of this and would rather leech off of our nations, and even complain about how bad we treat them.

Huginn ok Muninn
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 04:54 AM
The British and Americans established sovereign nations for their slaves/blacks, Sierra Leone and Liberia, respectively. Too bad few have taken advantage of this and would rather leech off of our nations, and even complain about how bad we treat them.

Need I say that repatriation should have been mandatory?

We all must confront the demons of our past and destroy them, so that we can go on. This one has haunted us too long already.

Northern Paladin
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 05:07 AM
I've seen many self-hating Whites say that they're not proud of being White because:

1. Why should I be proud of something I had absolutely no control over, like my facial features, or where I was born?

FALSE, your unique mind/soul is not separate from your physical being, it is determined by your ancestors as much as your facial features and body shape are.

2. We're all the same, there is only one race - the human race. Racial differences are merely superficial adaptations to climate, and have absolutely no deeper meaning.

FALSE, we are not all the same, nothing can be more obvious. If you juxtapose a tall Nordid European male and a Pygmy male you will see just how disparate those races are.

3. Any race could have accomplished what the White race accomplished, if they had the same resources at their disposal, or found themselves in the same circumstances.

FALSE, why didn't they? some had even better resources at their disposal, and better circumstances than Europeans.

and there are others...

Hilderinc
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 05:46 AM
Another very important one is white guilt. "I cannot be proud of belonging to a race which has done so many 'evil' things!"



1. Why should I be proud of something I had absolutely no control over, like my facial features, or where I was born?

Why not? Don't you have any self esteem? Aren't you proud of yourself and your family? You need to care about yourself.


2. We're all the same, there is only one race - the human race. Racial differences are merely superficial adaptations to climate, and have absolutely no deeper meaning.

Inform them that it is the human species, not the human race. Give them easy to see real world examples of how different populations really are; such as height (Asians shorter than Whites), physical ability (lots of blacks in sports aren't there), and also how important these physical differences really are and that they are not just aesthetic features but are crucial to survival in a region (Eskimos have epicanthic folds to protect against the cold, blacks have a different hair color and texture to help cool them, Nepalese Sherpas are better adapted to get more oxygen out of the air since it is scare at their high elevation.)


3. Any race could have accomplished what the White race accomplished, if they had the same resources at their disposal, or found themselves in the same circumstances.

Theoretically, sure, but the fact is that they did not. We promote other races to have pride in themselves (black history month) and they always love to say silly things about how a 'black man invented this'. Why would you not care about yourself? Why do you not care that you live in a nation created from nothing by Whites? That all the buildings, most technology, and a great deal of things you use everyday and take for granted were made by Whites? Does it not matter that you live in a civilization built by them? Go to Africa, or Asia, and live in a civilization built by other races, I will bet you they are quite proud of what they have accomplished on their own. Are you not proud of your own accomplishments (such as academic or sports)?



And to respond to the white guilt 'argument.'


Which race has not done 'evil' things? Native Africans were the ones selling us their enslaved tribesmen. Amerindians were the ones who massacred countless American villages and trading posts; Amerindians were the ones who sold us the land via treaties. The Chinese were the ones who slaughtered 60 million people under a totalitarian government.

None of these 'evil' things of our past has any thing to do with modern day. They only effected modern life for the better, giving us more resources and technology. Surely the good produced by any 'evil' far outweighs the bad, especially in modern days as we reap the rewards.

Also, is it not the 'right' of an animal who is more powerful to conquer that who is weak? Does the lion not have the ability and thus the 'right' to kill that gazelle? Does he not have the 'right' to care about only his own pride and kill members of opposing prides? Does life not have the 'right' to advance itself by any means?

Hersir
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 06:01 AM
Well we are the richest country on the world, have a very high standard of living.

USA is not the richest country in the world.
Ever seen this http://www.usdebtclock.org/ ?


Seven generations from now we will all be owned by the banks and be impoverished if this continues.

Sigurd
Friday, January 7th, 2011, 10:10 AM
Another very important one is white guilt. "I cannot be proud of belonging to a race which has done so many 'evil' things!"

Question such as: "How can you be proud of belonging to a race which has done so many 'evil' things?" can, as an alternative, be countered with a counter-question --- "If your kids do something silly every now and again, do you cease to be proud of them?"

The basic answer to this question will be: "No", and that allows you to move on and to recount all the positive things you're proud about, many of which will strike a chord with all except the most brainwashed; just like a parent would continue to then talk about all the times he/she was proud of their child - our culture, our heritage, our history being very much like the child of our people.

Basically, he has inadvertently given you a platform to present your ideas without him being able to make much counter-arguing. Some of this will stick, and if he's the intellectual type, he'll go away and weigh what you've just said against what he's been taught to believe.


1. Why should I be proud of something I had absolutely no control over, like my facial features, or where I was born?

The first thing I will do if someone asks me that will be a simple "passing the ball back to them"; I will ask them --- "Why not?" That leaves them to do all the explaining, which you can typically refute in two-sentence-answers before you move on to speak about the positives of such things.

If they're still reluctant at the end of it, I'll shrug it off and say: "Well, I for sure can't demand anything of you, but since it's something we have no control over anyway, I've certainly come to cherish what I've been given." --- Using his own argument against him.

And leaving him on such an open end will certainly make sure that he/she WILL go away and think about what I've just said.


2. We're all the same, there is only one race - the human race. Racial differences are merely superficial adaptations to climate, and have absolutely no deeper meaning.Play the ball back into their court again. If you're arguing something about the existence of race, and trying to make someone else see it, you should make some concessions and play by their rules. So drop a simple --- "Define 'race'."

Act as though you had absolutely no idea of what the scientific concept of race is. Let him draw it out for you. Then whilst he draws it out for you you'll find hundreds of points which prove that different human races exist. If that doesn't buy him, shift off to pet breeds, and ask him to recount the difference between Belgian Shepherd and German Shepherd, and then ask him again whether that's a racial difference greater than that found in humans.

Playing Devil's Advocate can be thoroughly amusing, and quite effective. :)


3. Any race could have accomplished what the White race accomplished, if they had the same resources at their disposal, or found themselves in the same circumstances.Make concessions to get into the details. Say --- "Granted, some races have accomplished culture." and he'll automatically play along with you and bring up China or Japan, perhaps India and Egypt. For each you'll have an argument why these advanced civilisations would have stagnated without White aid. ;)

If they bring up the slavery issue, apply to their classical education and reply: "You obviously haven't read Robinson Crusoe then." Chances are they will have, but forgotten most. You remind them of the Moors and other Africans as slave-traders allowing him to get into such a dismal situation in the first place. :P

Horagalles
Saturday, April 9th, 2011, 05:31 PM
...
Play the ball back into their court again. If you're arguing something about the existence of race, and trying to make someone else see it, you should make some concessions and play by their rules. So drop a simple --- "Define 'race'." The arguments against different races are often patently silly, but why not bounce the thinking work back into their court. One must make the oponents mind the battlefield and not necessary ones own mind a factory to support them.

...
Act as though you had absolutely no idea of what the scientific concept of race is. Let him draw it out for you. Then whilst he draws it out for you you'll find hundreds of points which prove that different human races exist. If that doesn't buy him, shift off to pet breeds, and ask him to recount the difference between Belgian Shepherd and German Shepherd, and then ask him again whether that's a racial difference greater than that found in humans.
You get your political correct academics that are quite persuasive to the masses, when making their arguments. One should be able to counter this with logic and of course some good resources in terms of information having some scientific credibility.

...
Playing Devil's Advocate can be thoroughly amusing, and quite effective. :)

Unfortunately you get people playing this in our own ranks from time to time. It shouldn't be the main point of debate and only be used to test something after new, creative ideas have been casted.