>>5687

>Step 1: The kind of racism that wants slavery and lynchings and segregation (hereafter referred to as Bad Racism) is bad.

Muh morality. From a global point of view I fail to see how the fuck slavery and lynchings are even related to muh wayccism. We all have ancestors who were slaveholders and ancestors who were slaves. So what? Lynchings happened a lot in the past and we don't see them today in most of the world.

As for segregation I think most Germans are segregated from most Japanese and vice versa. I think both are happy and rich any way. "Segregation" literally fucking means..uh..having a border.

>When /pol/ tries to spread "stealth red pills", or the text "it's okay to be white", they're directly contributing to this.

>Statements aren't inherently racist, from a social perspective, they have a certain probability of being produced by a racist trying to promote racism - and if that probability is high enough then you can get woke points by denouncing it even if the naive interpretation is acceptable.

>And they aren't trying to enforce uniformity either. There are many woke opinions that deny uniformity. That means a lot of woke opinions are mutually incompatible, but the thing they have in common is not a common theoretical principle, but that they wouldn't be endorsed by a typical racist or misogynist.

But they are already against facts.

>"There is no neurological difference between males and females" and "trans people's brains tend to be more similar to those of the gender they identify as" are incompatible opinions, but both of them are broadly acceptable because /pol/ would never, ever hold them.