no - demanding representation of your race isn't supremacy per say
But is that all that Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas said? He also wrote about "the destruction of our race". Is it wrong or "supremes" to "worry about about the destruction of one's race"? I don't personally share that view (I have a somewhat different view). And I don't have something against people that have that view.
And what do you mean by "per say"?
not all black people are african american so...
i describe through skin color cause it's exactly that, a descriptor. The arbitrary skin color seems to be what people are so fixated on, white supremes or otherwise.
Yet you are the one to continue to insist on describe and group people by the color of their skin, not me, and you know that fully well. And as I wrote, it is extremely superficial to describe it as such, and it is definitely not all people that do that.
For some fucken reason, this site has lost sight of that
Could you give concrete examples of that?
A black person saying "only reproduce with blacks" is not
Are African-Americans not entitled to their own opinions?
And why do you keep describing people through skin color? Why not describe African-Americans as African-Americans? As one example, lumping them in with for instance South Indians is not right or fair, for while South Indians tend to have very dark skin color, South Indians are extremely different from Sub-Saharan Africans. Why write about "brown people"? Why do you go for something so incredibly superficial?
As a side-note, reg. "A yellow person saying "Whites are inherently inferior" is not" , I would wonder or ask about which aspects the given group were considered "inferior" regarding.
idk what is confusing about anything i said, it was pretty cut and dry and I do not sense any type of genuine conversation being attempted here
So first you write in https://patriots.win/p/12hkYNlwu4/x/c/4DyLeCWTBSd that my comment is not coherent, which is blatantly false and you know that well and also distracts from the debate, and now you again seem to distract on purpose.
You seem very focused on "white supremes", yet would Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas fit into that category or similar category, and would that be an issue if so? Are your definition consistents? You seem to care much, much, much more about "white supremes" than caring about BLM or Antifa or the left or the communists generally in any meaningful way, though I would hope I am mistaken about that.
So you again lie intentionally (and seek to distract and derail among other tactics and tricks) about my formatting being hard to follow or that it is incoherent.
I'm focused on white supremes trying to recruit/infiltrate this site yes - because they are desperate for sympathy
No, Thomas is not a supremacist, no person concerned with the destruction of their race/peoples is - i'm pretty sure i made that clear in my long list of examples of what is supremacy and what isnt'
of course I'm concerned about black supremacists - i don't like this race bullshit whatsoever
Yet you seem extremely much more focused on "white supremes" than other topics, including leftists, Antifa, deep state, etc., despite those topics being incredibly much more important and relevant and present. Are you BLM despite what you claim?
And previously, you qualified it with "per say" reg. what Clarence Thomas said and whether someone is a "white supremes".
i grew up late 90's/early 2000's and want to go back to shit being normal
Normal like with O. J. Simpson? And what about 13/52? Continuing mass immigration (and extremely far from the best of those countries they came from, despite the peoples of many of those countries generally not achieving much at all and instead destroying things in their own countries) from people extremely hostile to the USA and its core and fundamental ways and the like? Etc. etc. etc. And this kind of stuff was very much also present back in the 90s. And communism has been a growing and extreme danger long before that.
You seem fully aware that your definitions are not at all consistent, and you distract and use various other tactics and tricks. You seem more than fine with communism, BLM, Antifa, etc., despite what you spend tiny amounts of time paying lip service to. It wouldn't surprise me if you are Antifa or BLM and a communist, using the specter of "white supremes" in various ways.
What are your thoughts on 13/52? Is it an issue, and if so, how great an issue is it? Is it acceptable in any way whatsoever? And who's responsible for that, and what should those responsible do differently?
(first comment: https://patriots.win/p/12hkYNlwu4/x/c/4DyLe7vTMhe ).
But is that all that Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas said? He also wrote about "the destruction of our race". Is it wrong or "supremes" to "worry about about the destruction of one's race"? I don't personally share that view (I have a somewhat different view). And I don't have something against people that have that view.
And what do you mean by "per say"?
Yet you are the one to continue to insist on describe and group people by the color of their skin, not me, and you know that fully well. And as I wrote, it is extremely superficial to describe it as such, and it is definitely not all people that do that.
So first you write in https://patriots.win/p/12hkYNlwu4/x/c/4DyLeCWTBSd that my comment is not coherent, which is blatantly false and you know that well and also distracts from the debate, and now you again seem to distract on purpose.
You seem very focused on "white supremes", yet would Associate Justice of the SCOTUS Clarence Thomas fit into that category or similar category, and would that be an issue if so? Are your definition consistents? You seem to care much, much, much more about "white supremes" than caring about BLM or Antifa or the left or the communists generally in any meaningful way, though I would hope I am mistaken about that.
(first comment: https://patriots.win/p/12hkYNlwu4/x/c/4DyLe7vTMhe ).
So you again lie intentionally (and seek to distract and derail among other tactics and tricks) about my formatting being hard to follow or that it is incoherent.
Yet you seem extremely much more focused on "white supremes" than other topics, including leftists, Antifa, deep state, etc., despite those topics being incredibly much more important and relevant and present. Are you BLM despite what you claim?
And previously, you qualified it with "per say" reg. what Clarence Thomas said and whether someone is a "white supremes".
Normal like with O. J. Simpson? And what about 13/52? Continuing mass immigration (and extremely far from the best of those countries they came from, despite the peoples of many of those countries generally not achieving much at all and instead destroying things in their own countries) from people extremely hostile to the USA and its core and fundamental ways and the like? Etc. etc. etc. And this kind of stuff was very much also present back in the 90s. And communism has been a growing and extreme danger long before that.
You seem fully aware that your definitions are not at all consistent, and you distract and use various other tactics and tricks. You seem more than fine with communism, BLM, Antifa, etc., despite what you spend tiny amounts of time paying lip service to. It wouldn't surprise me if you are Antifa or BLM and a communist, using the specter of "white supremes" in various ways.
What are your thoughts on 13/52? Is it an issue, and if so, how great an issue is it? Is it acceptable in any way whatsoever? And who's responsible for that, and what should those responsible do differently?
See also https://patriots.win/p/12hkYNlwu4/x/c/4DyLe7vVIB9 , https://patriots.win/p/12hkYNlwu4/x/c/4DyLeCXb1kW and https://patriots.win/p/12hkYNlwu4/x/c/4DyLeCXdETY .