Originally Posted by thumper

Why is it an automatic supposition that self-determination = violent extremism. Can the same be said about the "Tibetan Supremacists"?

Originally Posted by SwordOfTruth

I don't know any Tibetan Supremacists, so i can't say for sure concerning them, but I'd apply the same standard to them as i do to anyone else. If your self-determination, or a Tibetan Supremacists self-determination, impinges on or inhibits someone elses ability to determine their own destiny, it's morally wrong. Ideologies that are based on hatred lend themselves to violent actions on the part of their adherents, which violates someones self-determination, and are therefore by default suspect.

Originally Posted by IsItJustMe

I haven't made such a supposition. But Tibet is a nation, not a race. Tibet has geographic boundaries. Tibet has a history. Tibet has a language. Tibet has a culture. White people have no geographical boundary. White people have many diverging histories, and white people in the U.S. share their history with non-white people, as they do their language and their culture.

Originally Posted by IsItJustMe

I konw almost nothing about Mario Obledo, but assuming, for the sake of argument, that he is saying what you claim he is, then he is wrong, in the same way that you are. Certainly white people are not going to be forced to go back to Europe in California, any more than they have been in Mexico, Cuba, Panama, etc. This is a very unrealistic fear that you have.

Originally Posted by IsItJustMe

Why should I have to get out of a given area just because I'm in a minority in it? What about my property rights? What if I'm a fundamentalist Mormon who deconverts, and I have a house in one of these FLDS towns. Why should I have to give up my property, or sell my house at less than value? Why should I have to leave my home town just to be able to make a living?

It's a form of ethnic cleansing is what it is, not all that different from what happened in Israel in 1949.

Originally Posted by IsItJustMe

I don't think you really mean that. Surely you believe in having a law against rape, don't you?

Originally Posted by IsItJustMe

No one can or should force someone to date someone they don't want to date. But that's a different kettle of fish from renting housing or hiring an employee. You have rented an apartment at some point, I assume. Did you have a personal relationship with the person you were renting from? I doubt it. Jobs are to a considerable extent the same way. And no one can or will force you to be friends with your neighbors if you don't want to be.

Originally Posted by IsItJustMe

Have you ever been in business? Do you know, one of the most important elements to setting up a successful small business is connections, specifically connections to people who have money to spend. In a racially segregated society, people from the race that is on the outs will have a very hard time doing this.

And in this country the wealthy and powerful are still disproportionately white. That's a simple fact.

You have complained that you've been denied your god-given right to live in a ghetto. First of all, I think you exaggerate. Many white people live in ghettos pretty much unmolested. But even if you are not exaggerating, so what? Why do you want to live in a ghetto so bad anyway? It's like me complaining I can't move to some little town in Utah cause I'm not a fundamentalist Mormon. I wouldn't dream of moving to rural Utah anyway.

People mainly care about discrimination when the thing they can't get due to discrimination is valuable, and that's only sensible. So discrimination against minorities in the U.S. is still important partly because so much of the things that are important are in the hands of white people.

Beyond that there is another quite distinct problem with segregation and that is that it fundamentally leads to intercommunal tensions. People who grow up in mixed neighborhoods don't have to worry nearly as much about crossing the line over to the other ethnic group's side of the neighborhood and getting a beating for it, and that's for the best.

Originally Posted by thumper

I have no interest in enslaving any people of any ethnic group. Is that good enough

Originally Posted by SwordOfTruth

Do you think the only form of self-determination that people who are not of your ethnic heritage deserve is freedom from slavery?

Is this a deflection because you can't come up with a response?

Being cute and flip when people challenge your ideas makes it look like you can't answer those challenges.

If this is wrong, feel free to prove yourself here.

Originally Posted by SwordOfTruth

My premise has never been that self-identity is born out of hatred.

Do you assume that you have more right to self-determination than others who aren't of the same race as you?

Originally Posted by thumper

I think that we all have a right to self-determination, no matter what.

I think people are getting confused by the abuse of the word "supremacist", as if to say white nationalists seek to dominate other people. They really don't.

Originally Posted by SwordOfTruth

White nationalists don't commit acts of aggression against others who are not of their race then?

If a white supremacist kills a man because of his heritage, that is impeding that mans right to self-determination. I believe you --I like to give people the benefit of the doubt-- when you say you think all have a right to self-determination, but other white supremacists deny blacks jobs and housing and physically attack and hurt and molest jews and are abusive to sikhs, for example, who never did anything but try to lead quiet peaceful lives. The list of how white supremacists other than you abuse people and take away their right to self-determination goes on and on.

So, if you mean "Do i have a right to live a life that in no way impacts or impedes the rights of other to live their life as they see fit" then yes you do have the right to self determination