California Professor Calls for Genocide of Conservative White people

[Montrovant]

Of course he refers to conservative white people as 'racist white people'/ but that is only code for 'conservative white people as the last 18 months has demonstrated.

The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered

Give us the quote.

Where does this professor call for the genocide of anyone?

It is a 355 page paper- perhaps you could narrow it down to a page number?

Actually, it is a 30 page paper, or 29 pages of real content and a copyright page at the end.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course he refers to conservative white people as 'racist white people'/ but that is only code for 'conservative white people as the last 18 months has demonstrated.

The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered

I've browsed the paper and cannot find where the author calls for the genocide of conservative or racist white people. Can you point it out?

The whole paper seems based on defining genocide as something that need not involve any killing. For example, "It follows from this that the characteristic harm of genocide is not linked to the fact that victims can be and are at times murdered because they happen to be members of a hated group." Under this definition of genocide, no one need die; any process which attempts to destroy any group can be considered genocide.

Yeah- this seems to be a particularly snowflake moment by Jimmie- where he imagines a call for genocide of a group he belongs to.....or just is lying to attack who he perceives as a threat to his 'clan'.

 

[Tank]

A lobotomy would be just as effective

Why do you guys love people having surgery to change themselves?

In your case, it would improve your personality

Why?
So I can be some kind of tranny faggot like yourself?

 

[Syriusly]

Of course he refers to conservative white people as 'racist white people'/ but that is only code for 'conservative white people as the last 18 months has demonstrated.

The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered

Give us the quote.

Where does this professor call for the genocide of anyone?

It is a 355 page paper- perhaps you could narrow it down to a page number?

Actually, it is a 30 page paper, or 29 pages of real content and a copyright page at the end.

Yeah- I thought it was a single paper and just looked at the last page- it clearly was published in some sort of journal- my bad.

 

[Syriusly]

A lobotomy would be just as effective

Why do you guys love people having surgery to change themselves?

In your case, it would improve your personality

Why?
So I can be some kind of tranny faggot like yourself?

You will always be your own brand of tranny faggot Tank.

We are used to it.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I wouldn't resort to genocide

A lobotomy would be just as effective

To level the playing field for Africans unable to compete?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Of course he refers to conservative white people as 'racist white people'/ but that is only code for 'conservative white people as the last 18 months has demonstrated.

The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered

I've browsed the paper and cannot find where the author calls for the genocide of conservative or racist white people. Can you point it out?

The whole paper seems based on defining genocide as something that need not involve any killing. For example, "It follows from this that the characteristic harm of genocide is not linked to the fact that victims can be and are at times murdered because they happen to be members of a hated group." Under this definition of genocide, no one need die; any process which attempts to destroy any group can be considered genocide.

I failed to post the article that the analysis was in.

My bad.

“Morally Required Genocide”

Abed reasons, it’s sometimes “morally required” to commit genocide, and he hasn’t been shy about advancing that argument in a series of lectures and essays that have somehow managed to stay under the radar of the media (especially the right-leaning media) over the past few years.

Abed lays out his central thesis in the paper’s abstract: “Genocide is not in any sense distinctively heinous. Nor is it necessarily immoral.”

Morally justified genocide? Abed realizes this might be a tough sell:

Many will no doubt be shocked by these claims. Surely a view that has such unsavory implications should be rejected. In fact, it ought to be condemned in no uncertain terms. Reactions of this sort are overblown.​

Of course, any such objections by fellow academics were almost certainly silenced once Abed named the skin color of the targets of his “moral genocide”:

One can certainly concoct a hypothetical scenario in which the deliberate annihilation of a group’s way of life is a “moral and political imperative.” And there may be a case for classifying as genocide campaigns of social destruction that are widely considered to be not only excusable but morally required. The institution of slavery in the American South was, arguably, a comprehensive way of life and worldview to which many whites were profoundly attached. It would not be wildly implausible to say that their investment in the culture and norms of the slave-owning community rivaled in its social meaning and significance an individual’s affiliation with a national or religious group. But because the kidnapping, enslavement, and lifelong exploitation of innocent human beings was a constitutive and thus ineliminable feature of the life led by many Southern whites, annihilating their way of life was a moral imperative. The right course of action was to strip them of an identity that gave meaning to their lives.​

Interestingly and to no one’s shock, when Mohammad Abed was confronted about the Europeans facing extinction or at least an annihilation of their way of life after millions of Muslim migrants have flooded their countries, Abed argues that Muslims intend to adopt the customs of their host country rather than alter them. 1400 years of Islamic destruction is evidence to the contrary, but when have facts ever mattered to Islamic supremacists?

Peculiar, secondly, because although it was no doubt the case that people were motivated to leave their countries of origin by a wide range of considerations, I suspect that the desire to make a better life for themselves and future generations of their families was one of the most common. If this is the case, then surely there must be something about the traditions, practices and norms of European countries that are valued and respected by immigrants. But then why set out to systematically undermine the social, cultural and political foundations of those societies?… Why would immigrants attempt to systematically undermine norms and institutional structures that guarantee their democratic freedoms, including their right to be culturally different and to practice their religion without hindrance?​

Mohammad Abed is a professor at a public California university who believes it’s morally required to rid the world of evil white racists but Muslims can do no wrong. In fact, he completely ignores how Islam spread from the Arabian peninsula to other nations.​

 

[Yousaidwhat]

they are themselves unnatural perverts and sodomites

Your flattery won't work on me.

 

[Syriusly]

Of course he refers to conservative white people as 'racist white people'/ but that is only code for 'conservative white people as the last 18 months has demonstrated.

The Concept of Genocide Reconsidered

I've browsed the paper and cannot find where the author calls for the genocide of conservative or racist white people. Can you point it out?

The whole paper seems based on defining genocide as something that need not involve any killing. For example, "It follows from this that the characteristic harm of genocide is not linked to the fact that victims can be and are at times murdered because they happen to be members of a hated group." Under this definition of genocide, no one need die; any process which attempts to destroy any group can be considered genocide.

I failed to post the article that the analysis was in.

My bad.

“Morally Required Genocide”

Abed reasons, it’s sometimes “morally required” to commit genocide, and he hasn’t been shy about advancing that argument in a series of lectures and essays that have somehow managed to stay under the radar of the media (especially the right-leaning media) over the past few years.

Abed lays out his central thesis in the paper’s abstract: “Genocide is not in any sense distinctively heinous. Nor is it necessarily immoral.”

Morally justified genocide? Abed realizes this might be a tough sell:

Many will no doubt be shocked by these claims. Surely a view that has such unsavory implications should be rejected. In fact, it ought to be condemned in no uncertain terms. Reactions of this sort are overblown.​

Of course, any such objections by fellow academics were almost certainly silenced once Abed named the skin color of the targets of his “moral genocide”:

One can certainly concoct a hypothetical scenario in which the deliberate annihilation of a group’s way of life is a “moral and political imperative.” And there may be a case for classifying as genocide campaigns of social destruction that are widely considered to be not only excusable but morally required. The institution of slavery in the American South was, arguably, a comprehensive way of life and worldview to which many whites were profoundly attached. It would not be wildly implausible to say that their investment in the culture and norms of the slave-owning community rivaled in its social meaning and significance an individual’s affiliation with a national or religious group. But because the kidnapping, enslavement, and lifelong exploitation of innocent human beings was a constitutive and thus ineliminable feature of the life led by many Southern whites, annihilating their way of life was a moral imperative. The right course of action was to strip them of an identity that gave meaning to their lives.​

Interestingly and to no one’s shock, when Mohammad Abed was confronted about the Europeans facing extinction or at least an annihilation of their way of life after millions of Muslim migrants have flooded their countries, Abed argues that Muslims intend to adopt the customs of their host country rather than alter them. 1400 years of Islamic destruction is evidence to the contrary, but when have facts ever mattered to Islamic supremacists?

Peculiar, secondly, because although it was no doubt the case that people were motivated to leave their countries of origin by a wide range of considerations, I suspect that the desire to make a better life for themselves and future generations of their families was one of the most common. If this is the case, then surely there must be something about the traditions, practices and norms of European countries that are valued and respected by immigrants. But then why set out to systematically undermine the social, cultural and political foundations of those societies?… Why would immigrants attempt to systematically undermine norms and institutional structures that guarantee their democratic freedoms, including their right to be culturally different and to practice their religion without hindrance?​

Mohammad Abed is a professor at a public California university who believes it’s morally required to rid the world of evil white racists but Muslims can do no wrong. In fact, he completely ignores how Islam spread from the Arabian peninsula to other nations.​

That fish still doesn't swim.

This sentence:
led by many Southern whites
nor is this one:
to which many whites were profoundly attached.

Doesn't exist in Abed's paper.

Nor does he mention Islam or Muslims.

So where the hell is Davey coming up with these lies?

First he gives us a link to a paper- which doesn't mention anything about genocide against 'whites'- doesn't even mention 'whites' or 'caucasians' or Islam or Muslim and then says the author is for genocide of whites?

Why is Davey such a lying Snowflake?