I so tried to avoid posting here anymore because the amount of time (I don't have right now) and frustration (I can't afford right now) it takes to answer Highroller posts, but this is just too much:
So yes, the question I'm asking is central to the argument itself: do you or do you not believe that racist behavior should be reduced? If you do, then you agree that one side is correct and the other isn't, and therefore your statement that the two sides seem equivalent is false.
No, the question would be: do you believe that one side has the superior claim? And I don't know the answer to that question, although I don't believe it to be as easy as you both claim.
That is Mad Mat disagreeing with me that the anti-genocide-against-anyone-not-white side has a superior argument over the pro-genocide side. That's not a distortion. That's not me twisting his words. That's what he actually argued, in his own words.
Now, do you agree with that? Because that's what I've been trying to explain to you, if you believe that not-genocide has a superior argument over pro-genocide, then you do not agree with Mad Mat.
This interpretation of my answer to your question only works if you assume racism is the same as genocide, which is simply not true. This is absolutely a distortion of what I have said.
To be honest, Mad Mat, I feel like Highroller is at least mostly right when it comes to what you have actually said here. But I feel like you aren't doing a particularly good job of explaining yourself.
I agree with Highroller's approach here that if you think someone/something is racist you should say so, and not necessarily worry about how that might make one feel. Unfortunately, though, I think this word - racist - is becoming increasingly less meaningful and, consequently, you should be ready to explain what you mean by that and why it's a problem. I also believe that Highroller has done a pretty good job of that in this thread.
I agree. Racism should absolutely be called out, but, as you say, you need to be able to explain. I would add I think there should be more explaining done upfront and less just throwing the accusation at people. It's not something you should use lightly, and the complexity of these issues in the modern world warrants careful consideration of detail, and people to be upfront about that detail or it isn't well heard.
Even more so, you need to be considerate that someone can do or say some racist thing without being deeply racist, or racist at all. True intentions don't always carry well, especially when the conservation becomes as polarised as it has, and you get caught out saying something you didn't mean or didn't understand. Or simply fall victim to a lapse in judgement and be a little prejudiced. It's certainly not good, but it's not the same as a genuine passionate belief in the supremacy of the white race or something.
Which is all to say- racism itself is truly abhorrent, but people involved in it aren't necessarily. It weakens the message about truly abhorrent racist people to throw everyone who says anything racist under the exact same bulldozer. Some are a LOT closer to being perfectly good people.
If it's not about racism, why are talking about how some people being grouped in this way are racist and some are not? What does that have to do with anything?
Because the problem is not that they are grouped in this way. The problem is that some will characterize all of them by the most extreme among them, and this is an unfair characterization. I've explained this in my posts.
I don't think you've explained it particularly well.
I'm getting a pretty different impression from this than some of the stuff you said earlier.
How does this point relate to the idea that 'SJW' can't be grouped in the same way 'White Nationalist' can?
All you are saying here is some people are irrational about it. But people can be equally irrational about the term 'White Nationalist', and in any case it doesn't pertain to what can be rationally said on the matter.
It certainly doesn't support this statement:
you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
If it's not about racism, why are talking about how some people being grouped in this way are racist and some are not? What does that have to do with anything?
To go over
I'm saying that the SJWs who are not racist are being lumped in with the ones that are
Zero problems with this categorization. Difference in racism is only relevant if it's about racism and it's not.
AND that people who discuss identity politics who are not illogical or racist - and thus not SJWs are also being lumped in with the SJWs who are racist
As I said earlier, you don't have to be either illogical or racist to fit the notion of 'SJW'.
Let's not call it white nationalism then, whatever.
We shouldn't, because that's absolutely not what it is by the very definition of the term.
I won't contest that point.
So people are being lumped into 'SJW' incorrectly because some of them are racist and some are not, yet, SJW isn't defined by racism?
Why don't the racist and the not racist both fit?
No, that's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying that the SJWs who are not racist are being lumped in with the ones that are, AND that people who discuss identity politics who are not illogical or racist - and thus not SJWs - are also being lumped in with the SJWs who are racist.
Ok, so this statement
you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
Isn't correct then?
Also, you don't have to be either illogical or racist to be an 'SJW', neither of those in fact go to the (closest thing to, at least) main point of the term, which is about whether you are more interested in the appearance of equality than actual equality. That can be linked to racism or being illogical, but it can also be linked to being simply self interested or to morally favoring equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.
Highroller, I think you are running under a definition of 'white nationalist' that is a very specific group, when the term just as easily applies to a significantly broader scope of people- still a minority, mind you, but a more influential minority, and a more comparable group to 'SJWs'.
I think the problem is pretty obviously that you don't actually understand what "white nationalist" means. If you don't think racism is an automatic given, you clearly don't understand the entire point behind the ideology.
Let's not call it white nationalism then, whatever.
Highroller, do all possible policies intended to promote racial equality actually promote racial equality? No? Then there is a difference. Even if it's correct that the policies in question do promote racial equality, if people object to these policies because they think they don't, that doesn't necessarily mean they are racist. They could simply have incorrectly evaluated the effect of the policy.
Ok, so demonstrate this. Go ahead and point out the Trump voters, Brexit voters, etc. who are genuinely interested in racial equality but object to the current policies and then demonstrate their arguments that voting for Trump, voting for Brexit, etc. will better promote racial equality, and then demonstrate how arguments contain absolutely no racism whatsoever. I would *LOVE* to read this.
You are basically shifting the burden of proof by asking me to prove people aren't racist when the default assumption is clearly that someone isn't racist. Go look and see the people arguing that policies they are opposing don't promote racial equality, they aren't hard to find, so I don't feel compelled to go point them out to you. Then if you are so convinced that every single one of these people are racist, then you prove it. I'm just going to rely on not assuming they are all racists for now.
And secondly that just because an idea is racist doesn't mean people who consent with it actually truly take on board and understand it, rather than simply consent by bandwagon or emotional appeal.
So they're only accidentally white nationalists? What are you even talking about?
White nationalism is specifically about preserving a white nation that is just for white people. You cannot subscribe to white nationalism and just totally miss the "white" component. This entire argument is absurd.
How many white nationalists do you think actually identify as white nationalists?
I'm talking about the people who listen to the more motivated, probably racist activists for the movement, and are sympathetic to and consent with some of the arguments they make, but don't really understand what they are getting into.
Sure, they aren't lots of these people, but it's not hard to believe simply that there are some.
At the very least, you can't just assume they don't exist.
'SJW' is not a group defined by racism, so this difference doesn't matter anyway.
Erm, no, the difference does matter. The discussion is about how there's a difference between lumping people together into a category when at least some of those people don't belong into that category, and lumping people into a category when all of them belong in that category.
To compare, Jay13x is saying you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
So people are being lumped into 'SJW' incorrectly because some of them are racist and some are not, yet, SJW isn't defined by racism?
Why don't the racist and the not racist both fit?
but there's no reason 'SJW" has to be grouped by this same characteristic,
... Which is what I've been saying. You clearly didn't read my posts. Go back and reread them.
That's not remotely analogous to lumping a bunch of people into the SJW camp who don’t belong there, or lumping a bunch of SJWs who actually believe in racial equality versus those who want racial supremacy. In both cases, you’re using a term to describe people that they don’t actually fit.
This quote here seems to directly suggest that either being racist or not being racist means you can't be an SJW. And also just above you argued a difference in racism means some don't fit.
So if SJW doesn't have to do with racism, you are going to have to concede you can very well lump racists and non racists together under it.
Well, the left is a larger percentage of the population of America generally, so the radical left being a smaller percentage of the left would have to be the case for an essentially equal numerical group to the the radical right.
Americans' political ideology remained essentially stable in the past year, with conservatives retaining the barest of advantages over moderates in Americans' self-identified political views, 37% vs. 35%. Liberals held firm at 24%.
I think most supposed moderates can be grouped into either category, and from what I've heard, when you do that liberals have the advantage.
I question this.
I think the radical left is much better as being subtle in what they are really up to. The radical right on the other hand, seems to be, for the most part, loud and proud.
I don't think what the most evil among 'SJWs' want is to directly make white people inferior, not most of them at least. The racism of the right is more exclusionary- the racism of the left is overprotectiveness. I think it's much more to do with the introduction of Orwellian authoritarianism- of oppressive laws of thought crime, hate speech and incredibly restricting quotas. Then forced labour camps perhaps, after all many of these people identify as Marxist, so I reckon there is some amount of desire for a Soviet Union style camp system to crush out the supposed evils of modern society.
If the radical right is actually worse than the radical left, I really don't think it's by much.
Hmm. I think there's also an element of size, in that the percentage of the left that would be considered radical (Keeping in mind that it's a two-or-more-axis spectrum, not just liberal-conservative) is significantly smaller than the percentage of the right that would be considered the same.
Well, the left is a larger percentage of the population of America generally, so the radical left being a smaller percentage of the left would have to be the case for an essentially equal numerical group to the the radical right.
The radical left is also significantly more varied than the radical right (Unless you count libertarians as the radical right, which is a topic for another debate)
I think at least some libertarians can be included as being part of the radical right.
I think you can pick out at least key three groups- radical libertarians, white nationalists and the pseudo-theocrats, with some overlap.
I mean, socialism and communism are both ideas one might consider to be radical left, but they are at different spots on a multi-axis spectrum.
I don't think socialism, unless you define it quite rigidly, is enough to place on in the radical left. And communism is contained within socialism, and occupies most of the radical space within it, so I don't know why you are pulling them apart like that.
First off, "does not want legal equality" does not really cover it, as often the grief originates primarily from the perceived legal favouring of certain groups. So, they may actually want legal equality: they're mad because they don't think it's currently in place.
You've got to be kidding me. You're talking about people who want homosexuals and people of non-white race to be treated like second-class citizens and legally be discriminated against, and you're telling me they're doing this in the interest of fairness?
Highroller, I think you are running under a definition of 'white nationalist' that is a very specific group, when the term just as easily applies to a significantly broader scope of people- still a minority, mind you, but a more influential minority, and a more comparable group to 'SJWs'.
If you don't accept this group to be called 'white nationalists', which is understandable, then fine, call it a different name.
I'm generally going to just make the comparison be the radical right vs the radical left, so that's an alternative for you.
Is it because they all think racial equality is evil? Or is it maybe because they do not believe into the policies to adress discrimination pushed for and implemented by the other side?
What difference does it make relevant to this discussion? "We don't want racial equality" vs. "We don't believe in the laws and polices passed to promote racial equality" is effectively the same damn thing! Either way you're promoting discrimination due to being against legal equality.
Highroller, do all possible policies intended to promote racial equality actually promote racial equality? No? Then there is a difference. Even if it's correct that the policies in question do promote racial equality, if people object to these policies because they think they don't, that doesn't necessarily mean they are racist. They could simply have incorrectly evaluated the effect of the policy.
Or is it maybe that they are nationalists, who discriminate not on the base of race but of culture (which does often correlate with race, but is also directly linked to social issues unlike skin color).
You cannot be a white nationalist and not be racist.
I'm going to disagree with you on two counts- one of which is that as earlier, that has to be a somewhat narrow definition of white nationalism. And secondly that just because an idea is racist doesn't mean people who consent with it actually truly take on board and understand it, rather than simply consent by bandwagon or emotional appeal.
Jay13x made the claim that white nationalists could be lumped together through their goals, whereas SJW's could not.
Which is valid.
To compare, Jay13x is saying you can't lump a black supremacist together with a person who genuinely wishes equality among races.
'SJW' is not a group defined by racism, so this difference doesn't matter anyway.
Your argument so far has been that White Nationalism can be grouped by racism, but there's no reason 'SJW" has to be grouped by this same characteristic, so it's pretty irrelevant to say you can't make a cohesive group because some aren't racist and some are.
'SJW' is generally defined by something like oversensitivity.
Not to mention, both sides view on racism; SJW pretend Racism is some sort of proplem that is exclusive to non-white people, and that human value is weighted according not only to your preference, but with what ethnicity you identify with. On the other hand the advocates of freedom say racism is almost non existant (or doesn't exists anymore) while fighting for the right to make offensive jokes and sicrarding every argument on it.
I relate and I don't know where the sensible middle ground has gone on race.***
***which is not to say that something being a middle ground or a moderate position necessarily makes it right, but I think in this case.
When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
The funny thing here is, you say you don't where the middle ground on race is, but that's because you're moving the Overton Window without even realizing it. You're normalizing an ideology that wants really ugly, inexcusable things because people who want equality also sometimes use ugly language. But they're not remotely the same.
Comparing "SJWs" to White Nationalists is absurd. White nationalists want the US to be a 'white nation', for white people. "SJWs" want their groups to be treated fairly and equitably, and frame their arguments in terms of the dominant power. Sometimes that results in stupid articles like 'White people are a plague to the planet', but there is no concerted movement to remove white people from America or make white people second class citizens like the White Nationalists want to do to others.
I question this.
I think the radical left is much better as being subtle in what they are really up to. The radical right on the other hand, seems to be, for the most part, loud and proud.
I don't think what the most evil among 'SJWs' want is to directly make white people inferior, not most of them at least. The racism of the right is more exclusionary- the racism of the left is overprotectiveness. I think it's much more to do with the introduction of Orwellian authoritarianism- of oppressive laws of thought crime, hate speech and incredibly restricting quotas. Then forced labour camps perhaps, after all many of these people identify as Marxist, so I reckon there is some amount of desire for a Soviet Union style camp system to crush out the supposed evils of modern society.
If the radical right is actually worse than the radical left, I really don't think it's by much.
Besides, "SJW" is a group that you're defining as having the same agenda, which is rarely the case. White Nationalists share the same rhetoric and goals (an America with only whites, or with whites in power), whereas Feminism is just one movement of many lumped into "SJW", and one that's not even cohesive within itself. I'd hardly call that a fair comparison. If one person wants ethnic cleansing, and one person wants fairness, they're not the same just because they both say mean things.
I'm going to agree with Mad Mat that you are being unfairly tight in your grouping of white nationalism. You are either defining it as a smaller group than 'SJWs', or you are ignoring divisions within that group defined as a more fair comparison in scope to 'SJWs'.
White Nationalism is broad group like the radical left.
On a related note, according to some researchers I have heard from, you can quite cleanly divide the political philosophy of 'political correctness' (or whatever you want to call it) into fairly moderate people with a strong support for social justice changes, and authoritarians who hide amongst the moderates who want more extreme measures of censorship and social control (like with what I was saying earlier).
I'm going to back and clarify one thing.
I'm not entirely sure what this statement is supposed to mean
But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong.
And I want to be clear what interpretation I was agreeing with. And that is the interpretation that 'these things' are 'not considered racist' (and the others) by the people saying them and people who support them. I do not entirely agree that 'these things' aren't considered racist (etc.) by the population overall. I reckon the majority of people would object to them, but a very large percentage doesn't have much exposure to them, and I think that is partly due to the efforts of the people doing these things to disguise themselves as activists for good, especially in their language.
When talking about race here, I mostly spend my time going after the SJWs. I figure that's because this forum can be very left. But I've been on right-wing forums and I'll come across the other way. The thing with the SJWs and race/gender is that they say things that are fundamentally appalling, things that I would recoil at if a white or male friend said them about women or a non-white group. But when they say these disgusting, hateful things, it is not considered racist---and, prejudice + power nonsense aside, these things are not even considered wrong. For a sample, one might google the SJW vs. Stormfront game and see how similar the rhetoric of SJWs and white nationalists really is or what happens when you replace all instances of "men" with "black people" in the words of a feminist SJW or when Buzzfeed celebrates presentations with titles like "white people are a plague to the planet," "white people are crazy" or "white people are dangerous," etc.
I agree with all of the later part very much. I'm not sure if the attitude to racial issues is a bigger problem on the left than on the right, as you seem to be implying at the start there. I'd say it's a fairly similar scale problem for both sides, but that the problem is easier to find but harder to recognise on the left than for the right- as I think the problem on the left is a more insidious one than the right which is more lead by lots of angry people on the fringe.
To be honest, Mad Mat, I feel like Highroller is at least mostly right when it comes to what you have actually said here. But I feel like you aren't doing a particularly good job of explaining yourself.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I agree. Racism should absolutely be called out, but, as you say, you need to be able to explain. I would add I think there should be more explaining done upfront and less just throwing the accusation at people. It's not something you should use lightly, and the complexity of these issues in the modern world warrants careful consideration of detail, and people to be upfront about that detail or it isn't well heard.
Even more so, you need to be considerate that someone can do or say some racist thing without being deeply racist, or racist at all. True intentions don't always carry well, especially when the conservation becomes as polarised as it has, and you get caught out saying something you didn't mean or didn't understand. Or simply fall victim to a lapse in judgement and be a little prejudiced. It's certainly not good, but it's not the same as a genuine passionate belief in the supremacy of the white race or something.
Which is all to say- racism itself is truly abhorrent, but people involved in it aren't necessarily. It weakens the message about truly abhorrent racist people to throw everyone who says anything racist under the exact same bulldozer. Some are a LOT closer to being perfectly good people.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I don't think you've explained it particularly well.
I'm getting a pretty different impression from this than some of the stuff you said earlier.
How does this point relate to the idea that 'SJW' can't be grouped in the same way 'White Nationalist' can?
All you are saying here is some people are irrational about it. But people can be equally irrational about the term 'White Nationalist', and in any case it doesn't pertain to what can be rationally said on the matter.
It certainly doesn't support this statement:
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
To go over
Zero problems with this categorization. Difference in racism is only relevant if it's about racism and it's not.
As I said earlier, you don't have to be either illogical or racist to fit the notion of 'SJW'.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You seemed to support that statement earlier.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I won't contest that point.
Ok, so this statement
Isn't correct then?
Also, you don't have to be either illogical or racist to be an 'SJW', neither of those in fact go to the (closest thing to, at least) main point of the term, which is about whether you are more interested in the appearance of equality than actual equality. That can be linked to racism or being illogical, but it can also be linked to being simply self interested or to morally favoring equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Let's not call it white nationalism then, whatever.
You are basically shifting the burden of proof by asking me to prove people aren't racist when the default assumption is clearly that someone isn't racist. Go look and see the people arguing that policies they are opposing don't promote racial equality, they aren't hard to find, so I don't feel compelled to go point them out to you. Then if you are so convinced that every single one of these people are racist, then you prove it. I'm just going to rely on not assuming they are all racists for now.
How many white nationalists do you think actually identify as white nationalists?
I'm talking about the people who listen to the more motivated, probably racist activists for the movement, and are sympathetic to and consent with some of the arguments they make, but don't really understand what they are getting into.
Sure, they aren't lots of these people, but it's not hard to believe simply that there are some.
At the very least, you can't just assume they don't exist.
So people are being lumped into 'SJW' incorrectly because some of them are racist and some are not, yet, SJW isn't defined by racism?
Why don't the racist and the not racist both fit?
This quote here seems to directly suggest that either being racist or not being racist means you can't be an SJW. And also just above you argued a difference in racism means some don't fit.
So if SJW doesn't have to do with racism, you are going to have to concede you can very well lump racists and non racists together under it.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I think most supposed moderates can be grouped into either category, and from what I've heard, when you do that liberals have the advantage.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Well, the left is a larger percentage of the population of America generally, so the radical left being a smaller percentage of the left would have to be the case for an essentially equal numerical group to the the radical right.
I think at least some libertarians can be included as being part of the radical right.
I think you can pick out at least key three groups- radical libertarians, white nationalists and the pseudo-theocrats, with some overlap.
I don't think socialism, unless you define it quite rigidly, is enough to place on in the radical left. And communism is contained within socialism, and occupies most of the radical space within it, so I don't know why you are pulling them apart like that.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Highroller, I think you are running under a definition of 'white nationalist' that is a very specific group, when the term just as easily applies to a significantly broader scope of people- still a minority, mind you, but a more influential minority, and a more comparable group to 'SJWs'.
If you don't accept this group to be called 'white nationalists', which is understandable, then fine, call it a different name.
I'm generally going to just make the comparison be the radical right vs the radical left, so that's an alternative for you.
Highroller, do all possible policies intended to promote racial equality actually promote racial equality? No? Then there is a difference. Even if it's correct that the policies in question do promote racial equality, if people object to these policies because they think they don't, that doesn't necessarily mean they are racist. They could simply have incorrectly evaluated the effect of the policy.
I'm going to disagree with you on two counts- one of which is that as earlier, that has to be a somewhat narrow definition of white nationalism. And secondly that just because an idea is racist doesn't mean people who consent with it actually truly take on board and understand it, rather than simply consent by bandwagon or emotional appeal.
'SJW' is not a group defined by racism, so this difference doesn't matter anyway.
Your argument so far has been that White Nationalism can be grouped by racism, but there's no reason 'SJW" has to be grouped by this same characteristic, so it's pretty irrelevant to say you can't make a cohesive group because some aren't racist and some are.
'SJW' is generally defined by something like oversensitivity.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I question this.
I think the radical left is much better as being subtle in what they are really up to. The radical right on the other hand, seems to be, for the most part, loud and proud.
I don't think what the most evil among 'SJWs' want is to directly make white people inferior, not most of them at least. The racism of the right is more exclusionary- the racism of the left is overprotectiveness. I think it's much more to do with the introduction of Orwellian authoritarianism- of oppressive laws of thought crime, hate speech and incredibly restricting quotas. Then forced labour camps perhaps, after all many of these people identify as Marxist, so I reckon there is some amount of desire for a Soviet Union style camp system to crush out the supposed evils of modern society.
If the radical right is actually worse than the radical left, I really don't think it's by much.
I'm going to agree with Mad Mat that you are being unfairly tight in your grouping of white nationalism. You are either defining it as a smaller group than 'SJWs', or you are ignoring divisions within that group defined as a more fair comparison in scope to 'SJWs'.
White Nationalism is broad group like the radical left.
On a related note, according to some researchers I have heard from, you can quite cleanly divide the political philosophy of 'political correctness' (or whatever you want to call it) into fairly moderate people with a strong support for social justice changes, and authoritarians who hide amongst the moderates who want more extreme measures of censorship and social control (like with what I was saying earlier).
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I'm not entirely sure what this statement is supposed to mean
And I want to be clear what interpretation I was agreeing with. And that is the interpretation that 'these things' are 'not considered racist' (and the others) by the people saying them and people who support them. I do not entirely agree that 'these things' aren't considered racist (etc.) by the population overall. I reckon the majority of people would object to them, but a very large percentage doesn't have much exposure to them, and I think that is partly due to the efforts of the people doing these things to disguise themselves as activists for good, especially in their language.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I agree with all of the later part very much. I'm not sure if the attitude to racial issues is a bigger problem on the left than on the right, as you seem to be implying at the start there. I'd say it's a fairly similar scale problem for both sides, but that the problem is easier to find but harder to recognise on the left than for the right- as I think the problem on the left is a more insidious one than the right which is more lead by lots of angry people on the fringe.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice