Racists shy away from the fact that men are more likely to commit murder than women? No, I assure you, roughly every racist on Earth would find any other view ridiculous. But it is very easy to find non-racists who take the equally absurd position of denying that African Americans are more likely to commit murder than White Americans
And you're wrong when you say there are no calls from racists to restrict male immigration. Of course, most racists want to restrict both male and female immigration. But one constantly sees complaints specifically about how many male immigrants are entering the USA. And I have seen it suggested (though only rarely) that immigration should be allowed for females only.
I might have been a bit uncharitable in my interpretation of your comment. I think your view is this:
Racists support immigration from white men and women, but if racists really care so much about demographics they should only support immigration from white women, since they're much less violent than men.
OK, this is a reasonable enough point and deserves a reasonable response, but I think the response is quite simple:
As long as both white men and white women are contributing positively to society, and improving the future demographics of the country, why wouldn't racists welcome both? If they limited immigration to only the less-violent female whites, they'd be missing out on the net-positive contribution of white males, and thereby shooting themselves in the foot, and for what? A demographic shift in the short-term that will lead to reduced violence. But also the troubles that come along with gender-imbalance. And in the long-term, the population will go back to being roughly 50:50 male-female anyway.
> 2. You can't have white women without white men.
As objectionable as some might find it, tearing apart families through immigration policy is already possible. If the idea is that immigration is bad because it brings more crime, the conclusion is clear, if we evaluate things objectively.
I wasn't talking about tearing families apart. I was talking about the fact of biology that white females can only come into being if there are white men to father them. In any case, I simplified my comment into just one point.
Actually white females can come into being if the definition of white is expanded. Initial conceptions of whiteness didn't include Scottish and Irish people, and recently Richard Spencer said he thinks 80% of Italians are white. This would have been an unthinkable statement even in the 1970s.
White is a fluid category with no real objective basis. I recently saw a very amusing argument between an American, English and Polish troupe. The American said that Poland was a great example of a pure white ethnostate. The Englishman said the American was an idiot - Polish people were Slavic. The Polish nationalist said they were both idiots - Polish people are Polish, not Slavic nor White.
I challenge anyone to come up with an objective definition of whiteness.
I am very interested in a serious conversation about the initial topic. If you want to talk about that, I would be happy.
But in the meantime I will play along with this tangent, since I guess it could be fun, too.
Embracing a new definition of the White race does not cause more white females to be brought into being (at least, not in any easily predictable way). It simply causes females that had already been brought into being to be reclassified from non-White to White.
And their fathers would have to be White, too.
At no point in time are there White females who do not have White fathers.
Interesting. When did the first white father exist? Could you provide historical and scientific evidence of that person's existence and proof of their whiteness?
I think some Homo sapiens sapiens in Europe mated with some Homo sapiens neanderthalensis and that's where the white skin came from. Maybe. But this was a very long time ago and there's no historical record or way of using DNA evidence to narrow anything down to a specific date or a specific person. Even if we did know the person whether we met the conditions for being white would depend on what kind of definition of the White race we were using. For example, whether we were using a definition that focused on the current point in time, or one that was interested in the White race as it exists and evolves throughout the past and future.
Oh interesting, so you're saying the definition changes through time and those changes can change the amount of white people in the world.
That also seems to suggest there's no objective definition of white, which also seems to suggest that any claim that all white people need to have a white father would be utter garbage.
> so you're saying the definition changes through time
No, I was saying you could have a static definition that accepted the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations.
I will also say now that there are many definitions of the White race and that to whatever extent there is one "the definition" of the White race, it changes over time, too.
And you have at the end made a logical error. Just because there are a range of possible definitions of the White race does not mean that all possible definitions of the White race are acceptable. Just because there are components of and aspects of the definition of the White race that my change, does not mean that there are not components and aspects which may not change. And, while there may be edge cases, in general, one needs to have White parents to be White. That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry.
> the obvious fact that the White race would evolve over thousands of generations.
Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible.
Another way of saying there's edge cases for a rule is that the rule isn't a rule at all.
> That's because one's race is determined by one's ancestry.
Not true! You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white. Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective. The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly. I'd consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s.
> Ok so there was a long period of time when "white" people didn't have white fathers. But earlier you said that's not possible.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that, for example, the 100th generation of White people would be different from the 10,000th generation of white people.
White females can't come into being without White fathers. They could during the formation of the White race. But they can't now.
> You and I both agree that some people that were previously referred to as non-white are now commonly referred to as white
not a contradiction
> Ancestry is one part of the muddled definition that racists try to worm their way around into being objective
Biological race is just ancestry.
> The truth is there's no objective basis for race, it is all made up, and it changes pretty constantly
What about ancestry.
> d consider myself white but I have Polish (Slavic) and Scottish (previously non-white) ancestry. But, at some point, it became fine for me and people like me to call ourselves white. The English would have disagreed, as recently as the 1850s.
I'm not sure whether they would have. Doesn't matter either way. Racialist beliefs could have a totally illogical origin and yet be entirely correct. Beware the fallacy fallacy.
> White females can't come into being without White fathers. They could during the formation of the White race. But they can't now.
The white race is continually being formed, which is evidenced by the changing attitudes towards whether Italians, Greeks, Irish, Scottish and Polish people are white - amongst others. You'll find a tonne of people that disagree over whether Polish people, and others, are white. There's no central authority that definitively decides.
> Biological race is just ancestry.
What's the scientific definition of race? Feel free to use biology papers for this discussion.
There's no "the" scientific definition of race. There are various definitions of race that could be called scientific, although I'm not totally sure what it means for a definition to be scientific. The only thing that could be called "the" scientific definition of race is the very unscientific definition that generally emerges like this:
> Genetic variation is greater within groups than between them :^) There is no biological justification for racial groupings :^) Race is purely a social construct :^)
Which admittedly isn't much of a definition but does make it clear (incorrectly) that there is no valid biological justification for racialism.
I define a race just like dictionaries did before the race-doesn't-exist-except-as-a-social-construct movement was established did:
During what period (please tell me the years so I can understand) were white people "largely or totally isolated" from other people? In what area (would be great if you could show on a map) were they isolated?
Alright, fair enough. I just haven't seen a map or a time period laid out that's ever explained this mythical whiteness. I don't think such a map exists, and all the racists I talk to always struggle to provide one. It'd be good to get a solid historically and biologically accurate outline from an intellectual heavyweight like yourself!
Thanks for playing!
What year did they originate and where, by the way?
Well, you're right if it makes you feel better. Clearly males are more dangerous than females and restricting male immigration makes some sense. I could see an argument that immigration should be female only.
That said. Apparently, we're talking about 1% of the population if the article is to be believed. So we're not really talking about all males here, nor even a majority of males for that matter.
Of course that also means we're not talking about anything close to a majority of black americans, but that's a whole other discussion.
And you're wrong when you say there are no calls from racists to restrict male immigration. Of course, most racists want to restrict both male and female immigration. But one constantly sees complaints specifically about how many male immigrants are entering the USA. And I have seen it suggested (though only rarely) that immigration should be allowed for females only.