there has to be an ethnocentric state for white people somewhere.
Why? I mean, why does it matter that "white people" survive? It's always held out as this obvious truth, this self-evident conclusion - but why? The type of "genocide" being discussed here isn't actually mass-murder. It's the slow change in skin tones through inter-breeding over time to the point that, potentially, people with pale skin that we currently call "white" may no longer exist.
So again, I ask: why is this a problematic future? What would that future look like? Why would it be "bad?" Unless someone is claiming that skin-tone actually affects intelligence and behavior, it should be absolutely shrug-worthy. I'm about as white as they come. Why in the hell do I care if all of my descendants are someday darker skinned than I am? Why should I care if the entire world settles into one shade? You have to demonstrate how this is actually a bad thing, beyond the old racist ideas of the past that darker skin somehow equates to lower intelligence and bad character.
I mean, we have to remember that race doesn't exist. It is a social construct. We came up with the idea that varying skin tones actually mean something, because we couldn't get past idiotic tribalism, left over from our development as apes in the wild. But not all evolutionary urges are beneficial or useful in a modern society concerned with the promotion and preservation of human rights. The great thing about our human intelligence is that we can ignore harmful urges.
Again, race is a social construct. Our deciding that skin color somehow is a valid criteria for separating ourselves into groups is about as valid as doing it based on hair-color, or tendency towards having freckles, or eye colors. It's a meaningless superficial characteristic that ought to hold about as much importance as those other things, but we decided it somehow matters, somehow makes us different.
If, over time through interbreeding, there eventually were no more white people*, it wouldn't be genocide** any more than if, over time through inter-breeding, we ended up with no more people with freckles, or brown eyes, or armpit hair. Again, it's a meaningless physical characteristic with absolutely no bearing on anything, and it's only our idiotic tribalism that has made us turn it into a tool of oppression.
*The "white genocide" preached by racists is never going to actually happen, and the people so "worried" about it know this. They're not actually interested in stopping white people from going extinct (which is next-to-impossible) so much as making a nation where they don't have to look at not-white people. That kind of silly nativism has its own problems worth discussing, but that's another topic.
**genocide has a specific definition, and it's not "the slow and gradual change in superficial physical human characteristics over thousands of years." It's murder, specific targeting of people based on race, or religion, or whatever, and it involves displacement and murder and persecution. It's not the scientific principles of genetic inheritance working themselves out over time. Claiming "genocide" is a blatant insult to the actual victims of genocide in the real-world, and the racist white supremacists and separatists who to try to claim that victim status should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, if they had any sense of personal shame, they wouldn't be white supremacists, so there you go.
no subject
there has to be an ethnocentric state for white people somewhere.
Why? I mean, why does it matter that "white people" survive? It's always held out as this obvious truth, this self-evident conclusion - but why? The type of "genocide" being discussed here isn't actually mass-murder. It's the slow change in skin tones through inter-breeding over time to the point that, potentially, people with pale skin that we currently call "white" may no longer exist.
So again, I ask: why is this a problematic future? What would that future look like? Why would it be "bad?" Unless someone is claiming that skin-tone actually affects intelligence and behavior, it should be absolutely shrug-worthy. I'm about as white as they come. Why in the hell do I care if all of my descendants are someday darker skinned than I am? Why should I care if the entire world settles into one shade? You have to demonstrate how this is actually a bad thing, beyond the old racist ideas of the past that darker skin somehow equates to lower intelligence and bad character.
I mean, we have to remember that race doesn't exist. It is a social construct. We came up with the idea that varying skin tones actually mean something, because we couldn't get past idiotic tribalism, left over from our development as apes in the wild. But not all evolutionary urges are beneficial or useful in a modern society concerned with the promotion and preservation of human rights. The great thing about our human intelligence is that we can ignore harmful urges.
Again, race is a social construct. Our deciding that skin color somehow is a valid criteria for separating ourselves into groups is about as valid as doing it based on hair-color, or tendency towards having freckles, or eye colors. It's a meaningless superficial characteristic that ought to hold about as much importance as those other things, but we decided it somehow matters, somehow makes us different.
If, over time through interbreeding, there eventually were no more white people*, it wouldn't be genocide** any more than if, over time through inter-breeding, we ended up with no more people with freckles, or brown eyes, or armpit hair. Again, it's a meaningless physical characteristic with absolutely no bearing on anything, and it's only our idiotic tribalism that has made us turn it into a tool of oppression.
*The "white genocide" preached by racists is never going to actually happen, and the people so "worried" about it know this. They're not actually interested in stopping white people from going extinct (which is next-to-impossible) so much as making a nation where they don't have to look at not-white people. That kind of silly nativism has its own problems worth discussing, but that's another topic.
**genocide has a specific definition, and it's not "the slow and gradual change in superficial physical human characteristics over thousands of years." It's murder, specific targeting of people based on race, or religion, or whatever, and it involves displacement and murder and persecution. It's not the scientific principles of genetic inheritance working themselves out over time. Claiming "genocide" is a blatant insult to the actual victims of genocide in the real-world, and the racist white supremacists and separatists who to try to claim that victim status should be ashamed of themselves. Of course, if they had any sense of personal shame, they wouldn't be white supremacists, so there you go.