What is one of your deeply held opinions and what would it take to change it? -

[Vitoze]

For example, to use something less controversial, I deeply hold that the M4a1 Sherman tank was the best medium tank of WW2 based on ease of repair, logistics, and crew suitability. I would change this opinion if I was provided data that proved another tank beat it in crew suitability and repair.

 

[Frank D'arbo]

That censorship of any kind is extremely evil; no matter what the purpose is, no matter what side of politics is doing it.


Nothing will change that.

 

[TendieGremlin]

I'm completely and 100% pro-gun.

The only thing that would change my opinion is if guns grew legs and started shooting everyone by themselves.

 

[Vitoze]

That censorship of any kind is extremely evil; no matter what the purpose is, no matter what side of politics is doing it.


Nothing will change that.

I don't think you can find much push back on that here. I do agree with giving media ratings for what is appropriate for minors, or encouraging parents to screen media before they let their kids interact with it though. I don't know if that would fall under your definition of censorship or censorship related activities though.

 

[Sīn the Moon Daddy]

Probably being betrayed, pointlessly, by someone you don't even really remember much. I didn't even remember their name. But I most certainly do know their name now.

 

[Dildo]

Belief in the supernatural is dangerous and one of the most ancient threats to human flourishing and civilization. It should be actively mocked, discouraged and ideally purged whenever it rears its ugly head in whatever form it takes.

It would take proof of things like magic, supernatural creatures or afterlife realms to make me reconsider.

 

[BoingoTango]

That censorship of any kind is extremely evil; no matter what the purpose is, no matter what side of politics is doing it.


Nothing will change that.

Well, how do you feel about censoring child porn?

Gotta play that Devil's Advocate

 

[Exorbital Columnations]

Boxer-briefs are best underwears.


I will not be dissuaded.

 

[Vitoze]

Boxer-briefs are best underwears.


I will not be dissuaded.

you can't dissuade the object truth.

 

[Lemmingwise]

Well let's take this calm topic and notch it up to 100.

That there is a patient plan of white genocide* supported by at least, but not limited to, the UN, the EU, and the US state.
The UN had the specific plan of migration replacement on their site for years, but deleted somewhere at the start of this year when the EU adopted the plan.

To prove otherwise, I would have to see the leadership of for example the EU distance themselves openly from the ideas of Coudenhoven-Kalergi and condemn them as immoral and a concerted social engineering push for fertility in western countries (contrary to the current social engineering aiming at anti-fertlity, as planned for example in the jaffe memo**, which is almost just a "how to feminism" guide.)

What else could prove it false? More room for open inquiry about this topic and for many of the reasonable questions to be proven false in open and honest discussions, rather than the type we see now, where people seem to be saying "White genocide isn't happening, we don't even know who is white, and besides, you can't stop the plan anyways".

I've tackled the topic a couple of times on the farms, and whenever we get down to brass tacks, those resisting the idea that white genocide is happening openly admit that they wouldn't care if it did happen, which is a pretty weird thing to say, to be honest.

I've gone looking for alternate explanations of some of the things mentioned here and not found them, that tells me that it must almost certainly be true; which is about the highest truth level in my own hierarchy of understanding things.

Have a bit of courage and if you disagree, provide some strong supported reasoning for why you disagree.



* geneva convention definition of genocide for the less informed:

Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

** Jaffe memo

 

[Memento Malum]

The most important thing for a person to possess is a sense of humor. The ability to laugh at the absurd is one of the things that makes us human.

To change my mind? Probably have to link laughter to early death or something of the kind. And that would be pretty funny to me, not going to lie.

Edit: Thanks Lemmingwise, now my opinion looks boring.

 

[JuniperFalls]

(sub saharan) africans are incapable of forming or maintaining civilisation unless they are propped up by foreign powers
same for australian aborigines

what it would take to change? an example of a sub saharan african (or australian aboriginal) civilisation that arose from within instead of being imposed by outside forces

Counter-argument: there were sub-Saharan civilizations -- the ancient Zimbabweans, and whatever old name Ethiopians went by when they were mentioned in Biblical or ancient Egyptian texts. As for the Aborigines, their population density never reached the point where they had to switch from hunter-gatherer life to agriculture (a switch which made life noticeably worse and harder for those early farmers).

 

[Memento Malum]

(sub saharan) africans are incapable of forming or maintaining civilisation unless they are propped up by foreign powers
same for australian aborigines

what it would take to change? an example of a sub saharan african (or australian aboriginal) civilisation that arose from within instead of being imposed by outside forces

Great Zimbabwe: https://www.britannica.com/place/Great-Zimbabwe

Mansa Musa: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Musa-I-of-Mali

The Zulu's were a pretty decent empire too. (before they completely destroyed themselves)

 

[Overcast]

Praising somebody or making note of them having a certain kind of heritage, sex or skin color when discussing their merits is just as bad as classic racism or discrimination.

It's essentially basing their entire value based on what they are rather than who they are. And it is essentially treating said people like small children that need to be protected rather than adults with their own agency.

 

[Lemmingwise]

And now that I took it 100, let's also do a tangential one.

I strongly believe that Feminism is an anti-fertility cult. Practically every part of it is anti-fertility. Look at the jaffe memo in my post above and the ideas how they planned to reduce population growth in the US and think how many of these have changed since the plans were formulated decades ago.

You remember of course that human fertility bottleneck is how many children women end up having, and often expressed in "children-per-woman".

Practically every vector of feminism reduces fertility. I say this without judgement of good/bad, just how it contributes to anti-fertility.

Reasons to believe that feminism is anti-fertility:

Reducing time to have children:
*Going to school longer
*Chasing career

Reducing the dream of having children:
*Homosexuality glorification
*Chasing masculine dreams
*Media filled with dysfunctional families
*Media filled with career women being heroes
*Mothers are depicted as unambitious

Killing or preventing children:
*Abortion
*Birth control

Making women less attractive and less attractive to build a family with:
*Fat acceptance
*Promiscuity
*Prostitution. PARDON ME, I mean our valiant sex workers.
*Opposing beauty ideals

Destroying fertility of women itself:
*Also fat acceptance
*Transgenderism glorification

Making men less attractive/necessary for women:
*State taking resources from men and giving it to women (see anglo study about men on average paying taxes, women on average getting state benefits)
*Quotums in business
*Discrimination against men in education (see sweden education discrimination laws for one example)


Also, there is a list of things on the contrary side, where feminism is pro-fertility:

Reasons to believe feminism is pro-fertility:
-Single mothers being celebrated.
-Support for polyamory families with children.
-Surrogate moms for gay parents
-Sperm donors for lesbian parents

That's it. That's the pro-fertility side of the coin for feminism.
(if I'm wrong, give me other reasons and I'll add those reasons to the list)

What would it take for me to think otherwise? Probably finding sufficient reason to make both these lists about equally long.

 

[JuniperFalls]

Have a bit of courage and if you disagree, provide some strong supported reasoning for why you disagree.

One of the genocide signs you listed was "(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;."

Who is imposing mandatory contraception or abortions on white women who do not want them?

 

[Black Waltz]

niggurz bad

 

[Clop]

And now that I took it 100, let's also do a tangential one.

I strongly believe that Feminism is an anti-fertility cult. Practically every part of it is anti-fertility. Look at the jaffe memo in my post above and the ideas how they planned to reduce population growth in the US and think how many of these have changed since the plans were formulated decades ago.

You remember of course that human fertility bottleneck is how many children women end up having, and often expressed in "children-per-woman".

Practically every vector of feminism reduces fertility. I say this without judgement of good/bad, just how it contributes to anti-fertility.

Reducing time to have children:
*Going to school longer
*Chasing career

Reducing the dream of having children:
*Homosexuality glorification
*Chasing masculine dreams
*Media filled with dysfunctional families
*Media filled with career women being heroes
*Mothers are depicted as unambitious

Killing or preventing children:
*Abortion
*Birth control

Making women less attractive and less attractive to build a family with:
*Fat acceptance
*Promiscuity
*Prostitution. PARDON ME, I mean our valiant sex workers.
*Opposing beauty ideals

Destroying fertility of women itself:
*Also fat acceptance
*Transgenderism glorification

Making men less attractive/necessary for women:
*State taking resources from men and giving it to women (see anglo study about men on average paying taxes, women on average getting state benefits)
*Quotums in business
*Discrimination against men in education (see sweden education discrimination laws for one example)


Also, there is a list of things on the contrary side, where feminism is pro-fertility:


-Single mothers being celebrated.
-Polyamory families with children.
-Surrogate moms for gay parents

That's it. That's the pro-fertility side of the coin for feminism.


What would it take for me to think otherwise? Probably finding sufficient reason to make both these lists about equally long.

You don't need feminism for that, that's just how women are when they already get money and security without sex.

Change my mind by not having several women immediately blow a casket and taking it suspiciously personally.

 

[Lemmingwise]

One of the genocide signs you listed was "(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;."

Who is imposing mandatory contraception or abortions on white women who do not want them?

There are more ways to impose measures to prevent birth than the measures you have just described.

The straigth answer to your question is that there is no mandatory abortions on white women who do not want them. There is no mandatory contraception imposed either, but there does seem to be some environmental causes that would be similar in effect to mandatory contraception. We are exposed to plenty of estrogen in drinking water and xeno-estrogens through bpa that might have similar effects on fertility. Perhaps this is also the source of the decades long decline of sperm quality. This is understudied and we don't know for sure. We also don't know if this environmental cause is intentionally caused or intentionally not prevented. I do not consider this proven beyond any doubt. And in any case since this is far from significant enough to call contraception, as women do not have that much difficulty conceiving, I'm willing to concede altogether that (d) is not met completely.

Note that you don't need to meet every of the genocide qualifications. I don't think (e) white babies are being taken away from them either.

You don't need feminism for that, that's just how women are when they already get money and security without sex.

Right and what social-political movement brought forward the social conditions where exactly that happens?

 

[special need's H20]

people who hate sweat pants. faggots always going on about jean pants. jeans are poopie!