What to think about this?
I donât know, what do you think of Jewish only spaces? What did you think of the religious ethnic segregation before 2024 Jews imposed on Palestinians everywhere on Gaza or the surrounding areas?
But, oh no, we canât talk about that as it is off limits, letâs focus on a few hundred white guys with their families in bum fuck Arkansas instead lead by a former OnlyFans porn star. 
Why do you have to mention Jews just about everywhere, all the time?
What about Indian reservations? What about black-only communities? What about Christian-only communities? But no, no, there must be at least one circumcised person involved for any topic to be worth notice to you.
This is an obsession.
2 Likes
If youâre going to tell the white gentile Caucasian Europeans what they can and cannot do donât be a hypocrite when largely white Ashkenazi Jews have instituted their own forms of segregated living for several decades already now where nobody dares to criticize them for that. I cannot stand hypocrisy and I will always call it out.
What do you think of places like Chinatowns?
What do you think of Harlem?
Letâs see how much your liberal hypocrisy withstands. Also, I am circumcised myself.
I brought this to the table with the same intention I ever have in creating or reopening topics here: to generate meaningful conversation. Whether this is actually possible is debatable, but at least I try.
Yes, Iâm a tolerant man, or at least I try to be. Though recognizing the differences between races, I fail to see why I should discriminate a man based solely on his skin color, regardless of anything he does or says.
The intention of creating white-only communities in a country which has taken several decades to get rid of racial segregation can be seen as good sign? Are Americans, as a whole, favorable to this kind of idea? Is it legal what these guys are doing? This is the type of question I was willing to ellicit.
As far Indians, Chinatown, Harlem, etc, what to say but that the historical circumstances that generated these other examples of segregation were wildly different? Did the American blacks isolate themselves voluntarily in places like Harlem or were they forced to do so because they were treated as second rate citizens? I donât even need to remember the history of Indian genocide.
You shall get your meaningful conversation soon enough, but of course you will probably not like my responses. Time will tell.
Youâll have to forgive me not responding right away sometimes, family life can be very demanding offline.
Much of the segregation in U.S. cities has historically been the result of policies, discrimination, and exclusion by dominant groups, particularly white populations, restricting minority groups from living outside designated areas through legal and economic means. Examples include redlining, racially restrictive covenants, zoning laws, and discriminatory lending practices that have limited housing options for minorities, reinforcing involuntary segregation in inner cities.
As a result, some minority communities choose to live in culturally or ethnically concentrated neighbourhoods, or ethnic enclaves, for social support, cultural preservation, shared language, and economic networks (e.g., Chinatowns). Some middle-class Black Americans express preference for predominantly Black neighbourhoods as part of identity and social cohesion, even when otherwise able to move to more racially mixed areas.
In the case of socially estranged people (who could that be?) research indicates that such people who experience estrangement from their cultural groups often show higher levels of aggression or aggressive behaviour. This connection is linked to feelings of social alienation, exclusion, and loss of belonging, which can lead to frustration and anger that manifest as aggression. A reduction in feelings of belonging, control, and meaningful existence, is psychological distress and can increase aggressive attitudes and behaviours as a response to the pain of exclusion.
This explains some expressions of xenophobia amongst people from minority groups.
1 Like
I guess what I am getting at is that if communal ethnic segregation is okay for some people it should be okay for all people.
Letting some people self segregate while telling others that they cannot is hypocrisy. Everybody should have the same rules and freedoms.
1 Like
I just donât see where this is the case. Life in our society is very complex, and I see people reacting to situations fluidly, doing what they can when they can. In the examples I gave, ethnic segregation occurred in many cases because there was no tolerance, which makes co-existence in restricted areas difficult.
The idea that if itâs good for one, itâs good for all is a fallacy. What you mean is that what is allowed for one group should be allowed for others, which has limitations which Iâm not going to list. It isnât feasible to give everybody the same freedoms regardless of the conditions available, because there are simple boundaries that space and time impose on us.
2 Likes
The fact that âif itâs good for one, itâs good for allâ is a fallacy is because what benefits one person or a small group does not necessarily benefit others; sometimes it actively harms them. Human needs, contexts and circumstances vary, so it is misleading to make universal assumptions about benefit.
For example, a food, medicine or lifestyle choice that is beneficial for one personâs health can be toxic or dangerous for another due to allergies, genetics or pre-existing conditions. A policy that enriches the wealthy, such as tax breaks, may not benefit the poor, who require structural support rather than incentives designed for those who are already privileged.
What seems beneficial to an individual may impose costs on others. For example, one factoryâs financial success may result in pollution, reduced farmland or health issues for surrounding communities. In economics, this is called a negative externality: an individualâs gain that creates collective harm.
Morality demands that we consider the broader impact, not merely the isolated benefits. A practice such as monopolistic pricing may benefit one company, but it harms consumers and competitors. What feels good to one group (e.g. cultural dominance or exclusionary traditions) can perpetuate oppression and suffering for others.
Even seemingly neutral goods can take on different meanings in different contexts. Education is beneficial in theory, but unequal access means that some people benefit while others fall further behind. A medication, social system or ideology may address the needs of one culture or population but have the opposite effect in another setting.
Itâs a Fallacy because the assumption confuses self-benefit with universal benefit, ignoring differences in biological needs (health and psychology), social positions (class, race, gender, geography), and power dynamics (who shoulders the costs and who reaps the rewards).
Therefore, what is âgoodâ for one person or group may be neutral, irrelevant or even harmful for others. A more accurate principle would be: âWhat is good must be examined in relation to its wider consequences and context.â
1 Like
Fascinating, but I will still maintain that if other groups can have their segregated neighborhoods, then everybody can.
For some reason you donât think white Caucasian Europeans should do the same because you think it will be harmful if they do. You think it will be harmful to other races and ethnicities if theyâre allowed the same privileges.
I would love some more context on that.
Can you clarify more on that point?
What on earth are you talking about! If you make such assumptions based on what I have written, you are obsessed with that thought and project it onto others.
My God, man, get some therapy or something!
âIf itâs good for one, itâs good for allâ is a fallacy is because what benefits one person or a small group does not necessarily benefit others; sometimes it actively harms them.â
I just assumed with your liberal beliefs you were talking about white Caucasian Europeans.
Therapy doesnât work for people like me.
If someone owns land and wants to only allow whites, so be it, its their property their rules. Humans canât seem to leave well enough alone.
My only issue with it is, the land is probably not theirs, but stolen from the Native Americans originally. We need a reset of land where everyone is given a good amount of land. City folk and suburbanites have it the worst, very clustered up together with no land or freedoms (for instance I cannot shoot a rifle in my backyard and must obey various rules about how I am âallowedâ to decorate my home.) For example if I want to build a sports arena in my yard I cannot because I simply do not have enough land for that.
So as I said, I donât like bullies. If someone wants to only allow whites on their property, its their turf their rules. Telling them what to do on their own property is trespassing and bullying.
That being said, when whites get together bad things happen. First Sparta enslaving 87% of their population. Then Rome enslaving the world. Then Britain enslaving the world. Then them coming to America and genociding the Indians. Then Nazis genociding Europeans. If Nazis want to build their own community, so be it, but it makes everyone nervous. Last time Nazis built their own community, we got WW2 and them invading and enslaving white countries. Or in Breaking Bad them enslaving people and making them build drugs. Now Jews are the new Nazis (Ashkenazi) and want to create a Greater Israel. Note that Jews are typically no more than 30% Ashkenazi, and are mostly white genetics.
He wants to feel like a victim. Thatâs why he gives the âoh no we canât talk about thatâ sarcastic spiel, literally on a forum where heâs talked about it endlessly without ever being asked to stop. Everyone wants to be a victim.
Thereâs nothing about saying âthe idea of Israel as a Jewish state is unethicalâ thatâs against the rules here.
1 Like
Jews are the biggest victims on planet earth with their fragile weak sensibilities, so much so that everywhere they go they need to create laws to make it illegal for outsiders to criticize them or give them negative feedback in terms of interactions under the guise of antisemitism. Now in the era of Palestinian genocide they want to make that term illegal because being the historic victims themselves they feel only they should have a monopoly on the word genocide despite committing it on others in utter total hypocrisy.
But yes dear Rabbi Flannel Yehoshua, take another swipe at character assassinating me which is obviously more your style, I would challenge you to a debate as the rest of your liberal friends have all but run away from me in retreated defeat as theyâre too mentally timid to even defend their own philosophical worldviews, ready when you are. Who am I kidding? You always run away too.
Yes, I like talking about Jews even coming from a Jewish ethnic background myself.
(Although I have rejected that family heritage side of my family entirely.)
Itâs interesting, you liberals will openly talk about the evils of white people and white men every single day in broad daylight not even trying to hide it in concealment, but the moment you mention those white people with Hebrew Yiddish names that are Jewish you guys go very quiet talking about how such public conversations are forbidden.
Why such double standards Rabbi Flannel Yehoshua? Is it a gentile goy thing only?
I donât expect you to respond to these posts, you liberals always cut and run when you have no arguments to things. People runaway from things when they have no real mental convictions of their own worth fighting for.
What the fuck are you talking about? Theyâre obviously not forbidden, youâre talking about it now. Get over your victim complex.
1 Like