This is almost incomprehensibly stupid, but sadly, the sophistry of crafting speciously correct nonsense has peaked in the new millennium, so an unfortunate number of people are wooed by these statistical propositions.
Her own implied definition of a refugee would require that whites who receive help be in the most destitute possible scenario. Not only the victims of injustice, but also without jobs, wealth, or any meaningful role in their own society. In other words, it would require that, in order to justify helping your fellow whites, they need to have lost everything they've ever built and been removed from any position of influence or power.
E.g., you need to have lost the war for a white place in the world before you can be a refugee.
Or, all non-whites must be systematically lifted up above all whites before it will be justified to help whites.
When you really poke the skin of this kind of reasoning, the goal outs. Until whites have literally just exchanged socioeconomic status with non-whites, whites can't be refugees of injustice.
The incoherence stems from the fact that blacks having a low SES outcome and whites having a low SES outcome does not equate to the same disparity.
You can put an African nigger in destitution and it will not require crushing his nature. You can't force a white into destitution, where he would not naturally be, without utterly taking away his freedom. Given freedom, niggers are destitute. Given freedom, whites eliminate destitution. So, you can't swap their outcomes without enslaving whites.
CHIRO 6 points 5 hours ago
This is almost incomprehensibly stupid, but sadly, the sophistry of crafting speciously correct nonsense has peaked in the new millennium, so an unfortunate number of people are wooed by these statistical propositions.
Her own implied definition of a refugee would require that whites who receive help be in the most destitute possible scenario. Not only the victims of injustice, but also without jobs, wealth, or any meaningful role in their own society. In other words, it would require that, in order to justify helping your fellow whites, they need to have lost everything they've ever built and been removed from any position of influence or power.
E.g., you need to have lost the war for a white place in the world before you can be a refugee.
Or, all non-whites must be systematically lifted up above all whites before it will be justified to help whites.
When you really poke the skin of this kind of reasoning, the goal outs. Until whites have literally just exchanged socioeconomic status with non-whites, whites can't be refugees of injustice.
The incoherence stems from the fact that blacks having a low SES outcome and whites having a low SES outcome does not equate to the same disparity.
You can put an African nigger in destitution and it will not require crushing his nature. You can't force a white into destitution, where he would not naturally be, without utterly taking away his freedom. Given freedom, niggers are destitute. Given freedom, whites eliminate destitution. So, you can't swap their outcomes without enslaving whites.