You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
0
PurestEvil on scored.co
1 month ago0 points(+0/-0)
> and therefore supports my point that you need organization to achieve that end.
It's clear that that is the final goal. But how will you get there? Have Whites be slaughtered and genocided by nons until they vote to deal with all nons?
What do you think how it will start? That suddenly EVERYONE is simultaneously in line with the same goals? Like a collective epiphany? No, it starts on a small level. Consider it stage 1. In order to get to stage 5, society has to go through all previous stages. You can't just skip stages. Most people do not act rationally on a large-scale and do not conform to clean processes. A certain messiness is inevitable.
> I'm saying that advocating for the indiscriminate serial killing of nons as a single individual
Well, if you focus on *indiscriminate*, then of course that changes things. But that's a qualifier that can make any action pointless. That's like driving arbitrarily or to a destination. The post didn't assert any specification though. So perhaps...
> pairs poorly with an assertion of being the more intelligent party.
...the key is to detect when someone is bullshitting? And you talk about *indiscriminate* action as if that's the point. You made that constraint up, it is a straw man so that you can easily argue against all of it.
> It's more likely for this to be motivated by justified rage rather than mere unintelligence, hence "blowing off steam."
See, to suppress your emotions, to choose to be "smart" about things and avoid conflict leads to certain defeat. How smart is it actually if you are a pushover who fears confrontation and rather surrenders than engages in violence? Who at least knows how to be imposing? Consider this on a collective level.
If we tolerate niggers killing us, raping us, jews to go full jewry mode again and again, how can you argue we are acting smartly here? It is cowardice covered in pretending to be smart and moral.
Literal niggers going arson and looting spree mode are better at this simply because they *do something*. It was completely aimless, they just chimped out. You'd think it is stupid, but it works. jews bring up their holocaust hoax all the time. Is it stupid? It works too. See it in an evolutionary perspective - if something works, it succeeds.
> you are reacting emotionally to my post
Emotions are irrelevant and arguing about it is pointless. Thus not a point, thus no "case in point." Don't waste our time with mind-reading bullshit.
> A single individual acting alone can potentially have an impact. But the actions of a group (or several groups) acting together are required in order to create change. That's my point.
That is obvious, self-evident even. The more people do X, the more X there is. Your points that mattered were only these two:
> But solo vigilantism will do literally nothing to undo the current problem
It's clear that that is the final goal. But how will you get there? Have Whites be slaughtered and genocided by nons until they vote to deal with all nons?
What do you think how it will start? That suddenly EVERYONE is simultaneously in line with the same goals? Like a collective epiphany? No, it starts on a small level. Consider it stage 1. In order to get to stage 5, society has to go through all previous stages. You can't just skip stages. Most people do not act rationally on a large-scale and do not conform to clean processes. A certain messiness is inevitable.
> I'm saying that advocating for the indiscriminate serial killing of nons as a single individual
Well, if you focus on *indiscriminate*, then of course that changes things. But that's a qualifier that can make any action pointless. That's like driving arbitrarily or to a destination. The post didn't assert any specification though. So perhaps...
> pairs poorly with an assertion of being the more intelligent party.
...the key is to detect when someone is bullshitting? And you talk about *indiscriminate* action as if that's the point. You made that constraint up, it is a straw man so that you can easily argue against all of it.
> It's more likely for this to be motivated by justified rage rather than mere unintelligence, hence "blowing off steam."
See, to suppress your emotions, to choose to be "smart" about things and avoid conflict leads to certain defeat. How smart is it actually if you are a pushover who fears confrontation and rather surrenders than engages in violence? Who at least knows how to be imposing? Consider this on a collective level.
If we tolerate niggers killing us, raping us, jews to go full jewry mode again and again, how can you argue we are acting smartly here? It is cowardice covered in pretending to be smart and moral.
Literal niggers going arson and looting spree mode are better at this simply because they *do something*. It was completely aimless, they just chimped out. You'd think it is stupid, but it works. jews bring up their holocaust hoax all the time. Is it stupid? It works too. See it in an evolutionary perspective - if something works, it succeeds.
> you are reacting emotionally to my post
Emotions are irrelevant and arguing about it is pointless. Thus not a point, thus no "case in point." Don't waste our time with mind-reading bullshit.
> A single individual acting alone can potentially have an impact. But the actions of a group (or several groups) acting together are required in order to create change. That's my point.
That is obvious, self-evident even. The more people do X, the more X there is. Your points that mattered were only these two:
> But solo vigilantism will do literally nothing to undo the current problem
> Violence has to be a later step
Both arguable, and I disagree.