Well said, Wookie.

Hey OP/white supremacist guy... Pretend I came up with something similar to this reply myself, read it back to yourself again, and add an extra go **** yourself on the end.

Also, go **** yourself!

Anyone posting this about a one day tempban given by any mod would be no less ridiculous.

What is a white nationalist?

Srsly dude you gotta get the **** out of this thread.

And the reason I say this is that there is one clip that I can recall of the greatest #9 ever ,Gordie Howe (canadian content) , giving someone a broken jaw or the like with an elbow shot. So we do not need your question as if it was some worthy post. We don't want your bull**** in this forum. politic or not. Your post is an elbow in the head for us ATF'ers and and most don't appreciate that.

Lol back to bfi

I almost posted again. I'm getting better and better at that.

You insist on misinterpreting what I've said as minimizing white nationalism. I'm saying that the terrorist is a white nationalist, and that to combat his brand of terror, one has to combat not only white supremacy, but white nationalism. How is it minimizing it if I'm saying that white nationalism in this case is the problem? I'm doing the opposite of what you're cynically interpreting me as doing.

So you're saying that people like the NZ shooter shouldn't be able to retreat behind the "nationalist" label. You're saying that we should call out white nationalists. My banned post says exactly that—calling this guy a white supremacist allows him to deflect that label and counter that he is not a supremacist at all, but a nationalist. But if this terrorist attack is called a white nationalist attack, that 'brand' is no longer something people can retreat behind.

I think maybe some of you are starting to get it, although through a strangely dissonant and hostile path.

Imagine trying to convince someone (possibly even yourself) to join a white terrorist organization. This person you're trying to convince has been adequately dissuaded of the idea of white supremacy through public discourse and seeing all the condemnation heaped on the NZ shooter. So you tell this potential recruit, "We aren't white supremacists at all. We're white nationalists. We're different—you can look up the definitions for yourself. You can look up the media's stories on the shooter—he's clearly labeled a white supremacist. That's not us. We're white nationalists."

If you call this terrorist what he is though, you deprive white nationalists of that maneuver.

No. I'm not going to be bogarted into exile because you guys insist on running an uncivil forum where a post like mine results in a ban. I probably won't post there much, because of the pervading ethos of low-content hostility, but I won't consent to an exile.


I've been pretty restrained during this whole discussion, and treated you guys with a lot more respect than you've treated me—this on the heels of an unfair ban because of a post that you failed to understand, but that it seems evident you actually agree with. I've been told to go **** myself by multiple people in a 30-post thread, which I would presume is a personal attack and should be actionable with a ban, but I doubt anything will come of it. I just want you guys to recognize that you're supposed to be the adults in the room on this site, and you can't honestly say given the content of this thread that you're making these forums a better place.

Is your decision to label the murderer a "white nationalist but not a white supremicist" rooted in anything other than that murderer's own words? Do you think that psychopath is a reliable and objective source?
Can you give a coherent motivation for being a white nationalist that is not rooted in white supremacy?

...Ooooooooooooooor we could just hammer home that white nationalism and white supremacy are the same thing, because they are. We don't need to pretend that they are wholly separate things, and they are down with killing non-whites.

I don't think the distinction between nationalism and supremacy is particularly important in this instance (I think it's a potentially useful distinction in at least some, maybe more academic, contexts), but it did seem to me that people were overreacting or misinterpreting somigosaden's words, along the lines he laid out above. My first reaction was that I didn't think someone wanting to defend white nationalism would make that argument. And if you don't interpret the post as a defense of white nationalism then it doesn't seem particularly objectionable, even if you disagree with it.

I think OP could have worded his entire post better. Here is how to do it without being longwinded:

"Do NOT let white nationalists run from this terrorist, we should be tying this terrorist and his motives to both white nationalists and white supremacists because they are one in the same, and they don't get to control the narrative."

Dear OP:

In order to participate in the discussion and little fun we have in the politics board, everyone needs to follow the rules.

One of the rules is no racism.

Promoting/defending "race nationalism" i.e. that the "races should stick to their own kind and not mix" fits very well into "no racism".

People who don't follow the rules get banned.

Does that answer your question?

Maybe he just has really bad taste and timing, but a night off and some points are hardly a disproportionate response for some bad posting.

I'm not super fussed about the temp-ban or the points, I was just offering an opinion about the post. Clearly the best advice for somigosaden is to #dealwithit and to avoid the forum.

But, it does seem like you're now saying that even if you were wrong you're still right, for other reasons. I think you would roll your eyes if someone made a similar post while arguing about something in the politics forum. :P

My primary news source is cbs. They are routinely using the term white nationalist and white supremacist interchangeably. Is the possible distinction really important when talking about a mass murderer?

I'm personally afraid that mass murders are going to become more common regardless of the rationale used by the killers. Still, I wonder in the context of this site, why somebody who believes that making a distinction between terms because he thinks it could matter is so quickly thought to belong to one of the hate groups he describes.

I think that one of the answers is that if we don't come down hard on people who even appear sympathetic to a racist mass-murderer, that we encourage such behavior.

The age of social media and what people are really capable of leaves me perpetually confused. Living in Vegas, I have seen more and more armed security in neighborhood places like whole foods and 7-11. In the short term, I'm happy about that recent change.

I'm not happy, however, that makes me happy.

I may have had an epiphany. Giving this more thought the op almost has to be a troll. Aside from demanding people be demodded for a temp ban and a deletion, there is the ridiculous quote from the killer he posts: "I wish the different peoples of their world all the best regardless of their ethnicity, race, culture of faith and that they live in peace and prosperity, amongst their own people, practicing their own traditions, in their own nations."


Anyone who REALLY believes that would not think killing innocent strangers in NZ would be productive. So having thought more about it, I agree with jmans troll ban. And no demoddings or reversal of infraction points at this time will be considered.

Because its been a longtime tactic of white supremacy to soften their image with the term white nationalism. We dont hate the other races we just want separation. Yeah sure. The NZ shooter is a white supremacist who is playing that game. And the OP is either pushing that game or buying into it. Him mind reading the shooter and pushing him as a non supremacists makes me think the former.

I am saying that I stand by my first post here, that if your response to this mass shooting is that you think it's really important to draw a distinction between white supremacy and white nationalism, you can go **** yourself. Maybe you're just an idiot and not an apologist, but the gfy stands.

If the reason for drawing the distinction is to apologize for either white supremacists or nationalists then absolutely: gfy is a good response and permaban would be better.

If the reason for drawing the distinction is to argue that it's important not to let white nationalists disavow the terrorists as "supremacists" then that doesn't seem like either idiocy or apology, even if it might have been expressed poorly.

Obviously that's a big "if", but I don't think it's irrelevant to how one might reasonably respond. Anyway, there's probably no reason to argue about this too much: "OP should #dealwithit" is still correct IMO and to be clear I'm not sympathetic to the call to demod anyone or any of that. I'm just saying I think it's plausible that people over-reacted a bit.

On a similar note, a better response to all this from OP might have been just to PM the mods, try to clarify the intended meaning, and then probably also to try to clarify it in the thread instead of here. I expect there were other motivations in play as far as starting an ATF thread, but I was just ignoring all of that because I don't really care :P

OP,

Go **** yourself!

This. David Duke and the KKK have used this approach for decades now. “We just want to be proud of white heritage, and love separately from those people and not Nate with them because reasons.”

This. Any attempt to highlight this distinction without a difference is furthering this tactic.

Of course this is complete BS. Even if we bought into this tactic, white nationalism is still always white supremacy. If, say, one of these fools spews something like "Europe for white folk, Africa for black folk", that's still supremacy. They are saying white folk should be supreme and rule over inferior races, or just kill them all instead, in Europe. Just that simple.

But, of course, "white folk"/etc is still always a cultural construct, so the whole underlying premise is dripping with supremacy to begin with. As mentioned, it's all BS, and this whole aside only serves as a white supremacist/nationalist/whatever tactic.

Cliffs: it's a distinction without a difference. Pointing this out is, and is only, furthering a white hate tactic.

I vote ban the idiot.

He was saying that the guy isn't the run of the mill racist, "he is a nationalist" which is other speak for patriot. Besides the fact that he wasn't even in his home nation.

Pretty sure the mod who handed out the original ban should be demodded for not making the ban long enough.