I think some people have me confused here. I have in-group preferences. All humans do. But my in-group of friends, neighbors, and co-workers the community I rely on is not ethnically homogeneous. We're Americans *culturally*.

Well me personally... and you can use buzzwords all you want... but my in-group of friends is racially homogenous. And I see nothing immoral with that, nor is there any good reason to change that.

And you can make all this up about black people if you want, that's genetic and biological despite no proof of it, but then you can't make the same arguments about IQ and Crime rates when it comes to excluding asians, jews or various other demographics, and so it comes down to, well that's just a made up reason

So if you had a serial killer neighbor who was white, that would be better, than a black neighbor who was productive and had working, just due to race xD

actually more serial killers are black. i have data to prove it too but youd dismiss it so who cares.

This is the problem with basing stuff on race, it's arbitrary; yes but if that individual black person is not a serial killer, and that individual white person is, who cares what the average is?

Species and families are just as arbitrary as race, as categories, they aren’t clear endings and beginnings

dude i never said that all black people are violent or dumb..

the fact that you interpret statistical averages to mean that all black individuals must be dumb or violent kinda says more about you then it does about me

And yet you'd rather never live around any of them and only be in a white only ethnostate despite this xD

What about the intelligent non-violent black people, you exclude those because of the one's that are? Again, it's arbitrary

it also shows that you dont understand averages.

I do, my point is excluding an individual and feeling a closer association with someone you don't even know just due to race is silly

or, basically dumb

pffft you are so foolish. Well Ill say this. If Britain got nuked Id feel more upset then if Nigeria got nuked. <:pot_of_kek:544849795433496586>

Both would make me upset like yo thats not cool. But Britain to me would be markedly more uncool.

Right, another deflection xD

That's kind of my point, it doesn't end up being logical if the issue is on the well being of the society as a whole, or about having better neighbors with a closer sense of community and so on

Its not a deflection at all.

I am telling you that yes I feel a closer association to a white stranger then a black stranger. I also feel a closer association to individuals who are in the same class as me. Combining the same race and same class, and if I can see that from appearance, makes me more likely to engage with them. However that does not mean that I would never engage with a black person in a friendly conversation. All of this seems a rather normal way to operate to me, and I see nothing immoral with it.

That's not the only point I'm making, again, the fact you'd want an ethnostate for safety or IQ, and then include a white serial killer but not a productive black person. You would think if the issue was safety or merit you'd select for these features instead of race, but it comes down to that you see people in your same race as being your community rather than, those whom you actually live around.

The thing I live in Texas, and I'd rather be around my pro-gun black and hispanic neighbors than a bunch of white Californian liberals or any assortment of Eurocucks, as I like their values and principles and ideas, rather than the fact they just, are white. I judge people as individuals, and so it's irrelevant if there is a higher statistical average, I wouldn't exclude someone because they're lumped in with another group of people but assess them as an individual. The issue is it's ultimately not about crime, IQ, values, culture etc. if you exclude people for factors not based on those reasons. At the end of the day there will be bad white people you would support and good black people you exclude, for no other reason than deciding to do it that way, for it's own end.

the white serial killer would be arrested duh for murder. so that is invalid. the arrest would separate them from the society

And yet you don't just arrest the black serial killer xD

I mean how is it invalid when we do the same thing for the black people, the arrest would seperate them from society, why do you need to exclude them as a whole xD

You just defeated your own argument

Half of hate crimes are Blacks and Hispanics attacking each other. Even though they are minorities in the USA. Just this simple fact alone tells you that having a majority of blacks in the US as compared to having the Majority of the population be whites. That violent crime would increase.

So? Just arrest them, that would be enough to isolate them from the rest of society, same as the white Criminals.

also who said I want a 100% racially homogenous America. You just make stuff up and put words into my mouth this whole time so we are done here.

You want to be around more white people than people of other races, but yet your reasoning for it is bad

Again, you are deflecting again, and not addressing my point that the same solution would work for non-whites, just making a strawman and saying "Well I didn't say this *exactly*", like, alright, but the same principle still stands.

No it doesnt. Because wanting a 100% racially homogenous America is different then the stuff I say. And you say that I would exclude nonwhite people. So you are just wrong and mischaracterizing my points. As usual.

Never did I use the term 100%, etheir, again, you're just straw-manning

Saying that I want to exclude people is also straw-manning me. Saying that I would exclude people implies that basically the goal is a 100% homogenous society eventually. After continual exclusion this would be the result.

> Never did I use the term 100%, etheir, again, you're just straw-manning

Strawmaning and missing the point is all you have done.

But here are some quotes

-"well then im not a racist because i dont think whites are inherently superior. i just prefer to be around my own people. but also the term is useless and should be rejected"
-"the founding fathers understood this and were ethnic nationalists themselves. This is why the first naturalization act only gave citizenship to white men of good moral character."
-"maybe its actually immoral to not prefer your own kind and to not want to aid your own genetic stock in continuing. As that is literally inversing the point of the reproductive cycle on its head lol. For dumb illusory reasons that are founded in an ideology that is not based on reality."

I dont see where I said that I would exclude people.

Yes, you want to exclude people and primarily have a society made up of people genetically similiar to you, like the founding fathers etc.

That's the entire idea; now you're just being obtuse

I said the founding fathers excluded people and perhaps that isnt immoral. But I never said _I_ would exclude people. Read more carefully dude.

Yes, you didn't use the exact words and now are backpedalling xD

The same thing every time

also during the time of the first naturalization act the population was 10% black. so even the founding fathers didnt want it to be 100%. Again you are entirely missing the point and trying to characterize me as some kind of hitler or something.

Well that just proves your point wrong, not that you didn't make it