Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

How Nazis Recruit Normie Conservatives For Meme Wars

Rate this topic


MisterSwig

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

No, if [Neo-Nazis] were full-hearted [racists] they'd call for extermination camps.

I guess Hitler wasn't a full-hearted Nazi, because he didn't publicly call for extermination camps and tried to keep them a secret.

6 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Ourania seems to be doing fine. Unless you think that a small town of a thousand peace-loving Afrikaners is a "threat" to South Africa.

I don't have a problem with racists buying a town and keeping to themselves. Why don't the neo-Nazis do that? Oh, yeah, because they aren't full-hearted racists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

I guess Hitler wasn't a full-hearted Nazi, because he didn't publicly call for extermination camps and tried to keep them a secret.

And as a result, even the neo-Nazis who don't support death camps are accused of supporting death camps secretly. I can't read their minds, so I don't know what their ultimate goal is.

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

I don't have a problem with racists buying a town and keeping to themselves. Why don't the neo-Nazis do that?

Because housing discrimination is illegal. The government is actively trying to keep neo-Nazis in our country instead of allowing them to do what they would naturally do otherwise... self-segregate from the rest of the population. I'm not implying that every last one would move away... but a good number of them would as they have outright stated that white nationalism, AKA a nation for white people, is on their agenda.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Who said I didn't grasp what it means? When did I say I support liberal interpretations? When did I say that there weren't people also racist against whites?

I apologize for implying that. I was under the impression that Grames didn't provide an explanation for his picture because no explanation is needed. Apparently I was mistaken and quite a bit of explanation is needed, even to non-leftists such as yourself.

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

What I said is there is no rational reply to liberals - there are just memes and bromides that many people might not realize originate in deeply racist ideologies.

Leonard Peikoff, when advocating for the validity of the senses, uses the anti-reason philosophers' own (false) arguments against them. He said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "such an argument against the validity of the senses would even apply to God, if he existed. You could simply say to God, 'well, you're not directly perceiving reality, you're just perceiving what the divine sensory apparatus gives you.'"

In the same way, IOTBW uses the left's own false argument against them. 

The left says, "you should feel guilty for being white" and "you should face lessened opportunity because you're white."

I could say one of two things in response.

1. "Come on guys, we're all just human beings, this whole race discussion is irrational.. can't we all just get along?" That is an eminently rational statement, but it will get approximately zero traction. We are in a culture which promotes to kids, from the day that they're born, that race A. Exists, B. Matters, and C. You shouldn't hate on people for being a certain race... (unless they're white, the left would add).

You can't erase decades of conditioning with a simple appeal to rationality qua rationality. As Invictus would say, you need a therapist to do that. If it were as simple as appealing to rationality, we'd have won by now. More importantly, even when you make the case that race doesn't really exist, you get accused of being "blind to racism," AKA a racist yourself. There is no way out of the left's quicksand when you are constantly forced to perform acts of apologetics with them, constantly saying "no, I'm not a racist."

2. "It's okay to be white." This essentially throws their entire argument up in their face. It points out that they're being blazing hypocrites, because if anybody of any other race said, "It's okay to be X," they wouldn't have a problem with it. By doing this, I am essentially saying to them, "You are the most basic of jokes."

The only sticking point with this meme, as others have pointed out, is that it originated with neo-Nazis. I say, fine. The left already thinks that we're all racists anyway. If they're stupid enough to believe that everybody who is posting IOTBW is a neo-Nazi, then they're beyond rationality anyway; they've abandoned reason and there is no persuading somebody who has done so. They have free will to think or not to think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

This is blatantly wrong. All of the major religions on Earth are anti-liberty and have produced theocracies and monarchies that lasted for many centuries. Some still exist to this day in the Third World.

And they're all on their last legs. The genie has been let out of the bottle for reason, atheism, free thought, liberty, and representative government. Those ideas were not formulated centuries ago, so the darkness persisted in the absence of light. Now they are formulated, and humanity is more interconnected than ever, so there is no getting rid of these ideas.

Even North Korea has an estimated 10-20% of the population who consumes Western media, and they're the most tightly-controlled regime on the planet.

Saudi Arabia has announced its intention to reform into a moderate version of Islam--I'll believe it when I see it, but they've made some encouraging moves in the last two years such as allowing women to vote, and to drive. They've also arrested dozens of princes with alleged ties to terrorism... who knows how much of that is legitimate, but if even one of the princes was tied to terrorism then it's a step in the right direction.

While it's possible that we are headed into a second dark age, as Invictus2017 might proclaim, I tend to take a more optimistic view. Even if America itself does not survive, there will always be some place on earth where man can live qua man, where freedom reigns. And if not earth, there is always the stars above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

You can't erase decades of conditioning with a simple appeal to rationality qua rationality. As Invictus would say, you need a therapist to do that. If it were as simple as appealing to rationality, we'd have won by now.

For one, that's the liberal left. The Communist left does not like identity politics and engages in class warfare. For the sake of identifying threats properly, you need to know who you're arguing against - we don't want to fight Communism by fighting liberals. The racial stuff is mostly liberal, filled with contradictions.

The more important thing to do, at least when making arguments, is to state the position rationally. It would be better to dismantle an ideology alongside an alternative, rather than only point out stupid ideas. If people don't engage you, that's their problem. By doing that, you attract persuadable individuals. Yes, they exist. There's no need to say you'd need a therapist to do that. Appeals to rationality are appeals to people who might care, even the minority of good people who in fact will make a difference.

Appeals with memes attracts the lowest common denominator, the people who don't care to think deeply. Sure, they are amusing sometimes, maybe even correct. The issue is that they are still shallow. This is what propaganda relies on, hoping you don't care where it came from, getting you to think the issue is as simple as the image. This is fine to a small degree as motivation where an issue really is that simple. Except, Nazis get that the issue is complex. So they simplify. Make it sound benign. Let people who don't know better keep saying IOTBW, they won't know the point is to slowly make white identity seem important and dominate the race war. No, most people who say IOTBW aren't neo-Nazis. That's the point. It hides the fact that neo-Nazis are running that dialogue. It makes the phrase defendable.

An important thesis of Objectivism is that philosophy drives the course of history. It matters where ideas come from. It matters that IOTBW is from neo-Nazis. For this reason, we need a better strategy than to regurgitate a neo-Nazi phrase. The worst reply would be to say you don't care where IOTBW came from. You'd be saying origins of ideas don't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Nazis get that the issue is complex. So they simplify. Make it sound benign. Let people who don't know better keep saying IOTBW, they won't know the point is to slowly make white identity seem important and dominate the race war. No, most people who say IOTBW aren't neo-Nazis. That's the point. It hides the fact that neo-Nazis are running that dialogue. It makes the phrase defendable.

2db.jpg.0e335577e3e741910ed9ebb3554b0384.jpg

Yes, it's a Nazi trap! They get everyone accepting a Nazi meme, then they say, "By the way, we've been saying this for years. Why don't you check out some of our other great ideas? Oh, you don't like the GAS THE KIKES meme? How about WHITE PRIDE WORLD WIDE? We have a white pride rally coming up. You should check it out. We get to piss off liberals."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

They get everyone accepting a Nazi meme, then they say, "By the way, we've been saying this for years. Why don't you check out some of our other great ideas?

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

An important thesis of Objectivism is that philosophy drives the course of history. It matters where ideas come from. It matters that IOTBW is from neo-Nazis. For this reason, we need a better strategy than to regurgitate a neo-Nazi phrase. The worst reply would be to say you don't care where IOTBW came from. You'd be saying origins of ideas don't matter.

I would never, ever, start off a reasoned discussion with a rational leftist who is willing to change their mind, by saying "It's okay to be white."  Either in person or on the internet. I think we're all on the same page there.

I might say it as sort of a strategy to use their own arguments against them, for instance by saying, "Fine, if race does indeed matter, then it's okay to be white, because it's okay to be any race." It would be part of a larger argument meant to persuade, not taken out of context as a meme.

That's the problem, though. We're on the internet here. We don't have the time to make those sorts of longer, drawn-out arguments... unless you join a forum like this one. Take Reddit for instance. Even among people who might be willing to change their minds, you maybe get, at most, 5 or 6 replies of a few paragraphs each before the other side throws in the towel and says "I'm done with you" or if you're lucky, "Agree to disagree." If you're really lucky, you might get 8 replies. And on Twitter? You might get 20 replies but all of two sentences each. I've tried persuading people who I viewed as rational leftists on these sites, and it didn't work well. I didn't use memes or anything, just pretty standard libertarian/objectivist arguments.

The only other alternative is forums. I've used more reasoned, longer approaches on forums... you'll find scant few out-of-context memes in what I write. But even here, people can ignore you. Invictus2017 ignored me for seemingly no justification other than that I "refused to use my reason," whatever that means. The ex-prisoner putting himself in a prison of the mind--he's the most basic of jokes. Notice that I still quote him and use the few of his ideas I agree with, because I don't care that they come from somebody who blocked me. I wish him and his city in the sky the best. Talk about lofty ideas.

Which brings us to the genetic fallacy. Yes, origins of ideas matter... to certain people, in certain contexts. Origins do not intrinsically matter though. Some people are protesting the NFL because they sit for the flag, which originated with Black Lives Matter, which originated with a false claim of "hands up, don't shoot" by some thug kid. Are they right to do so? Well, it's their time to spend watching games or not. That's capitalism.

As for me, I'll take any good idea that I agree with, that suits my purposes, and run with it... in certain contexts. Again, because I'm not an intrinsicist when it comes to ideas. Ironically, I don't care if it comes from the kind of intrinsicism, Plato himself... the man said at least a couple of things in his volumes of work that are true. Plato was the first philosopher to hold men and women as intellectually equal. If I say, "men and women are intellectually equal," that doesn't mean that I'm promoting Plato, even though he's where the idea originated from. Peikoff starts his History of Philosophy lecture on Plato by acknowledging the good in him.

Leia: "Why must you confront [Vader]?"

Luke: "Because, there is good in him, I felt it."

So to wrap up this whole IOTBW meme. Do its origins matter? Yes and no. Yes, to certain people who are intrinsicist, guilty of the genetic fallacy, who judge an idea not based on the idea itself, but who said it. No, to people like us who can evaluate the legitimacy of an idea independent of who originated it.

Alas, though, we have a marketing issue here. What we think doesn't matter in marketing. What your target demographic thinks matters in marketing. Conciseness, and being able to make a point quickly matters in marketing. How valuable is your attention, is another good thread on O.O. which gets into that. In that sense, people will judge an idea based on its origins. IOTBW is no way to promote Objectivism.

That's why you don't see me actively spreading the IOTBW meme. I live 15 minutes from a college campus, I could easily hang up flyers there if I wanted to. I don't waste my time with petty things like that. I think it's fun to watch the left's hysteria in reacting to words that are essentially non-harmful... it not only proves them guilty of the genetic fallacy, but also the very racists they claim to stand against.

Again, that's the only reason that I passively upvote IOTBW memes on r/The_Donald. Because it's fun to watch leftists stew in their own contradictions. It's fun to watch evil ideas destroyed. It's fun to watch statists eat each other. I see it as a spectator sport, like watching two boxers duke it out.

Better grab more popcorn.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

So to wrap up this whole IOTBW meme. Do its origins matter? Yes and no. Yes, to certain people who are intrinsicist, guilty of the genetic fallacy, who judge an idea not based on the idea itself, but who said it. No, to people like us who can evaluate the legitimacy of an idea independent of who originated it.

Alas, though, we have a marketing issue here. What we think doesn't matter in marketing. What your target demographic thinks matters in marketing.

What are you marketing? White okayness?

If so, why does it matter what the target demographic thinks? All you're doing is marketing the message itself.

If not, if you have some other product you're marketing with the message, then it absolutely matters how that message was used in the past. You shouldn't want your message to be associated with another product. You shouldn't want to give that other product free advertising. And this is especially true if you morally oppose that other product.

This stuff is all marketing 101.

But you'll probably dismiss it as yet another example of the "intrinsic genetic fallacy."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

What are you marketing? White okayness?

No. I'm not marketing IOTBW at all. I don't spread the meme at all around the internet. The most I do is upvote it on r/The_Donald when I see it, to see leftists' reaction to IOTBW trending. I love their salt. I take selfish pleasure in their pain.

Quote

If so, why does it matter what the target demographic thinks? All you're doing is marketing the message itself.

You're marketing cognitive dissonance. You're marketing making people squirm uncomfortably in their own filthy mind. It's meant to shock. Consider it the same as the graphic warning labels that certain countries put on cigarettes, except this is the free market of ideas at play instead of some crony regulator.

Quote

If not, if you have some other product you're marketing with the message, then it absolutely matters how that message was used in the past.

Agreed.

Quote

You shouldn't want your message to be associated with another product. You shouldn't want to give that other product free advertising. And this is especially true if you morally oppose that other product.

This stuff is all marketing 101.

But you'll probably dismiss it as yet another example of the "intrinsic genetic fallacy."

I won't dismiss it at all. Fallacies apply to reasoning, not to marketing.

Marketing is an instance where genetics do matter.
Rational consideration of an idea's truth or falsity is one instance where genetics do not matter.

Like I said, marketing is all about exploiting what the consumer thinks. This is true whether or not the consumer is behaving rationally... which consumers rarely do entirely; most buying decisions involve some level of emotion, or faulty reasoning, or appeal to tradition, or what have you.

Just because marketing is a useful way to sell an idea, though, does not mean that it is a useful way to consider an idea. The concept of genetics should not at all be smuggled into an individual's proper reasoning process.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Marketing is an instance where genetics do matter.
Rational thinking about an idea is one instance where genetics do not matter.

Have you then forgotten the fact that the target demographic includes both sides of the political spectrum? You're focused on marketing cognitive dissonance to the Left. But the meme also markets cognitive resonance to the Right. So, why are you helping the Nazis resonate with conservatives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

I would never, ever, start off a reasoned discussion with a rational leftist

The "us" versus "them" is far from a rational fight with the "us" on the good side. The "us" in this case is collective identity. This is a strategy for collectivists, for collectivists, to beat other collectivists. It operates by appealing to emotion and strength in that collective identity.

I don't care if memes reach bigger audiences. Take the fact I'm arguing with you here. I'm trying to reach exactly one person, rather than going on reddit or Twitter to go for a mass audience. You're measuring success in terms of total number, not net effect towards rational society. Persuasion takes a long time, I promise you, it takes a lot longer than getting a laugh to make the alt-right troll brigade sound like loads of fun. I'm playing the long game.

So far, your argument is that neo-Nazi memes make liberals mad, and that neo-Nazis are impotent to go beyond propaganda. This is not persuasive here. This does not work when our concern should be philosophical trends. Right-ists or Left-ists are more dangerous at different times. But it's pretty universal for radical belief systems to reject liberalism of the modern era. Fascists hate liberals. Communists hate liberals. The point here is that you're mis-identifying threats by focusing on "beating the Left". You'll do great at stomping liberals. What will be left after that? Communists and Fascists, while we're left to rot away since we failed to develop a rational alternative.

"No, to people like us who can evaluate the legitimacy of an idea independent of who originated it. "
Again, you would need to know what it means and why it was said. The philosophy matters because it tells us how a person intends for those beliefs to be used. There aren't propositions divorced of contextual information. IOTBW has neo-Nazi belief and method embedded into it. The word-for-word meaning is true, but the implicit ideas underlying -that- phrasing mean a whole lot more. Stating a belief that "men and women are intellectually equal" is not comparable, as that's not Plato's phrasing. It is not imbued with an intent to push as gently towards Nazism. This belief here is rather neutral as far as its aims. If you meme-ified it for political ends, the context would be different.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

So, why are you helping the Nazis resonate with conservatives?

Nazi messages don't resonate with conservatives any more than they resonate with communists, or other radically-opposed belief systems. Conservatism and Nazism are as incompatible as Nazism and Leftism. People make the mistake of calling Nazis "far right." They're not. They supported fascism, a system of government-sanctioned corporatism. The idea that government should pick winners and losers is a fundamentally leftist idea.

Edited by CartsBeforeHorses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You're measuring success in terms of total number, not net effect towards rational society.

Not true. Have you watched my YouTube videos? They're light on the memes, heavy on the concepts, though explained in rather pedestrian language. I'm not concerned with going viral more than I'm concerned with getting people to think. Though obviously if I went viral it would be great--it would pay me good money through ad revenue--I will not compromise on quality of my argument.

31 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

The "us" versus "them" is far from a rational fight with the "us" on the good side. The "us" in this case is collective identity. This is a strategy for collectivists, for collectivists, to beat other collectivists. It operates by appealing to emotion and strength in that collective identity.

There's a saying about porcupines. During the winter they try to huddle together to keep warm, but their barbs prick each other. Even though they'd all benefit from huddling, they don't because of their barbs. You're being barb-y. You don't have to be.

Objectivists would do well with coordinated, targeted actions to maximize strategic effect. United not as some "collective," but around a shared set of ideas that we all have. Does a business simply hire people in its marketing department who don't talk to each other, who each go off on their own marketing campaigns to market the same product? No. They interact on a united campaign, with the same sales literature, the same metrics, etc. Cooperation is a benefit.

36 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

getting a laugh to make the alt-right troll brigade sound like loads of fun.

That is something I do in my spare time. It is purely recreational in nature. That is not part of any active campaign I'm engaged in.

39 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

You'll do great at stomping liberals. What will be left after that? Communists and Fascists, while we're left to rot away since we failed to develop a rational alternative.

How about this... you go after the commies and the fascists, and I'll go after the leftists. Deal? We can coordinate; we each do what we're best at.

44 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Again, you would need to know what it means and why it was said.

"A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

That's a common phrase. It's an idea. But it's a true idea in general, wouldn't you agree? You seem to espouse it yourself, that one person that you're eagerly engaged with one-on-one is worth whatever number of people you might "meme" at with unconvincing arguments out in the internet bush. It's true in many other areas of life. A great relationship is worth two first dates. An existing customer is worth two sales leads. Usually, it's far more than two, but the number can actually be measured in sales. I guess "A bird is worth 11.2 in the bush" didn't catch on as well.

You don't need to know the underlying philosophy of the guy who first said "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" in order to evaluate its truth or falsity. You can incorporate its contents into your general knowledge.

44 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

as that's not Plato's phrasing.

Sorry, I'll get it in the original Greek next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

That is something I do in my spare time. It is purely recreational in nature. That is not part of any active campaign I'm engaged in.

If you engage in it even in your spare time, you're part of the problem. Reading it is fine, participating is not.

1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

Objectivists would do well with coordinated, targeted actions to maximize strategic effect.

I agree.  I'm saying you are defending a collectivist style of coordination.

1 hour ago, CartsBeforeHorses said:

You don't need to know the underlying philosophy of the guy who first said "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" in order to evaluate its truth or falsity.

The idea is that the true or false isn't only the truth value of a proposition. The error here is that you did not capture the meaning of IOTBW. Literally, yes, it is okay to be white, or any race. If you stop there, you will miss what's going on. You'll miss the philosophical trend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

An important thesis of Objectivism is that philosophy drives the course of history. It matters where ideas come from.

No, actually it doesn't matter where they come from.  That is the genetic fallacy.  

GENETIC FALLACY

Genetic fallacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue[1]) is a fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. In other words, a fact is ignored in favor of attacking its source.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question.[2] Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are not conclusive in determining its merits.[3]

According to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy (1995), the term originated in Morris Raphael Cohen and Ernest Nagel's book Logic and Scientific Method[4] (1934).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Comes from" in the sense of philosophical context is different than "comes from" in the sense of concrete origins. In the discussion here, we are talking context and current meaning. I stated this in several ways so anyone reading knows I was referring to meaning and context by considering trends, intent, and more than propositional truth value. How else would I figure out context? We aren't talking about just if IOTBW is -true- phrased literally (it is true), we're talking about its use as a meme/propaganda. In that way, to take it literally is to fail to use meaning or context to reach a conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Person A said, "it's okay to be white" and Person B said "that isn't true, because a neo-Nazi made the claim," that would be an example of the genetic fallacy.

This is very different from the argument that it is improper to participate in a meme campaign orchestrated by neo-Nazis because it furthers their ends, and because it might lead to Objectivism being grouped together with neo-Nazis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Grames said:

The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance involving a conclusion that is based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context.

You mean like saying IOTBW is a good meme because you're the one saying it and not a Nazi?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

You mean like saying IOTBW is a good meme because you're the one saying it and not a Nazi?

Is selfishness good because I say so or because it is so?  Should I stop saying selfishness is a virtue because others think it's a vice?   What's the difference?   Is profit good or evil?  If a nefarious political group started the meme "profits are good" should we stop saying it?  How many examples do we need to illustrate the point?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Craig24 said:

Is selfishness good because I say so or because it is so?  Should I stop saying selfishness is a virtue because others think it's a vice?   What's the difference?   Is profit good or evil?  If a nefarious political group started the meme "profits are good" should we

If it had other meaning behind it, like a fascist meme-ified it to popularize state-sponsored profits for the good of the state in the spirit of a collective good without saying so directly. "Good" propaganda will use phrases that no one would deny the truth value of in order to present an issue without offering a rational argument. Bromides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

We aren't talking about just if IOTBW is -true- phrased literally (it is true), we're talking about its use as a meme/propaganda.

I'm glad some people agree that the meme is neo-Nazi propaganda. But, for the record, my position is that it's also literally either arbitrary or false, and not literally true, absent a proper, very limited context.

If your context allows the idea that it's okay to be white or non-white, then what are you talking about when you emphasize one over the other? Your one-sided assertion is completely arbitrary. Why emphasize white over non-white? What's the point? Most likely you embrace it because your context is actually a biased one, and you implicitly accept the premise that white is preferential to non-white. After all, it is your skin color. Why shouldn't you prefer it?

This is the power and threat of pure tribalistic propaganda. It's why the Nazis were--and remain--so influential. Skin color is undeniably part of your physical identity. But it's very easy to confuse it with your moral (mental) identity. There are indeed certain contexts in which physical features like skin color can be a value, such as during war between clans or cultures. A spy might be wearing your side's clothing, but his physical features will give him away. In this one sense racially segregated nations have an advantage over integrated ones. But as we learned in every modern war, ideological segregation is a much greater value than racial segregation. And this is yet another reason why we should not embrace one-sided racial memes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...