>Because “black” supremacy isn’t really a thing.
....yes it is. It it WAY more socially acceptable to be a racially aware "black" in the States, than it is to be a racially aware "white". No one questions the "black" guy wearing the "black and beautiful", but switch both with "white" and everyone will lose their minds. Saying everyone gets to be racist but one group, is only really going to make that one group racist.
>Reactionary tribalism isn’t as bad to me because it’s a defense mechanism, whereas “white” supremacy rose organically, and on its own.
Tribalism is tribalism. You are basically saying that slave identities are okay, but enslaver identities are not, although at this point they're honestly both slave identities.
>They don’t tend to talk about other groups at all from what I’ve read and seen from them.
You think "blacks" have never had trouble with Koreans & Latinos? lol
“Well his highly-documentated inability to acknowledge that anti-tech "whites" exist, and pro-tech "non-whites" exist, and that the problem is with technocrats, not a broad ethnic group, does a damn good job at making it seem like he is allergic to this nuance.”
>The issue is that one group is disproportionately responsible for many of them, and it’s not even close.
Reread my music faction analogy, because I'm getting really sick of repeated myself ad nausea. This "group" includes people who are not responsible for things people who vaguely look like them did. Learn basic Aryanism.
>They don’t.
He does. Did you even read our argument?
“Wait, what do you mean they're becoming self-hating idiots reinforcing everyone else's racist egos? What do you mean they're choosing extreme arrogance over extreme submission, and becoming racist themselves?”
>Even if 90sRetroFan’s approach were the wrong approach, an ally taking the wrong approach to victory is still way more of an ally than someone who becomes an enemy because of that wrong approach.
No. A "friend" can screw you more than an enemy can, and many enemies will help you in ways a "friend" never could. War isn't as symmetrical as you think.
>but if someone becomes a genuine tribalist, then it’s ultimately their problem
No, its OUR problem if people become racist. The entire point is to stop that from happening, whereas you your boy 90sRF straightup acknowledged that his politics are increasing racial tensions and injustices, but does not care. If you're entire argument is "well people suck lol" then why are you even here?
>They’re still the person that I admire the most, regardless of any potential criticisms
yikes. Regardless of any potential criticism? I can get credit where credit's due, but I think he even knows that he's lucky that he has someone willing to use their optimism to excuse his ignobility.
"A yes man finds his identity through his association with the leader, so he will consciously or subconsciously modify his words and behavior to protect his position before the leader. A loyal man, in contrast, will find his identity in who he is before the throne of God, which gives him freedom to love his leader unconditionally; but also gives him the freedom to give the leader feedback from a heart of sincerity, honesty, openness, and wisdom. Loyal men and women are not afraid to speak the truth in love because they are more concerned about serving the leader than protecting their own status with the leader."