European Civilization Headed for Extinction?

Feb 2016
5,049
Atlantic Ocean

Viperlord

Ad Honorem
Aug 2010
8,056
VA
TotalAaron said:
As for the rest none of those posts are racist. a bit blunt but not racist.

Damn shame we never killed them all, it would stop all this whinging i say. and even better, nothing of value would have been lost.
Advocating genocide of peoples you consider inferior, in this case aboriginals, is racist. This isn't exactly a great leap or reading between the lines so much as just reading what you outright wrote. It's right there.


s "Tyrants can make good leaders, african warlords not so much" a racist idea?
Given that the only difference in the way you have framed it here is skin color, yes.


holocaust revisionism my friend.
Using a different word to describe the same thing doesn't change it. You're a Holocaust denier and a self-described "uncle adolph fan."* I do not count neo-nazis as friends.


* http://historum.com/history/137885-napoleon-fanboys-hitler-fanboys-eerily-similar.html#post2983083
 
Last edited:
Feb 2016
5,049
Atlantic Ocean
Advocating genocide of peoples you consider inferior, in this case aboriginals, is racist. This isn't exactly a great leap or reading between the lines so much as just reading what you outright wrote. It's right there.



Given that the only difference in the way you have framed it here is skin color, yes.
I was not advocating genocide of a race, i was implying that their culture would have been better had it been anglicised.

Africa is a skin colour?

What about the other 3?

"Using a different word to describe the same thing doesn't change it. You're a Holocaust denier and a self-described "uncle adolph fan."* I do not count neo-nazis as friends."

You know we are friends, i actually have many POC's as friends. and Revisionism is not being a "denier" have you read the book i mentioned or are you just attempting to smear me?
 
Last edited:
Jul 2017
2,143
Australia
Aaron's got a point.

Irving is definitely a controversial figure, but regardless of his personal beliefs, his revisionism does not deny that the Germans killed many Jews intentionally.

In a less controversial topic, a lot of modern scholars are now revising the skills and abilities of King John Plantagenet, as we find new ways to interpret the biases of contemporary and more recent historians. Is this revisionism "denying" that John was actually a useless, jealous and greedy cry-baby? No.
 
Nov 2014
1,419
Birmingham, UK
I was not advocating genocide of a race, i was implying that their culture would have been better had it been anglicised.
so why choose the phrase "Damn shame we never killed them all, it would stop all this whinging i say. and even better, nothing of value would have been lost", instead of a phrase like, oh i don't know, "damn shame their culture did not become anglicised"? why would you bemoan the 'shame' that 'we never killed them all', if all you wished to do was bemoan the 'shame' that they never became more anglicized?

does the penalty of death for an entire culture strike you as an appropriate response to that culture's resistance to anglicization?

perhaps you weren't implying that 'their culture would have been better had it been anglicised', at all. perhaps that's just a very poor attempt to equivocate a nasty and very stupid comment that you have been called out on.
 

Similar History Discussions