Name one highly diverse multi-racial country that didn't become a Brazil-tier shithole or end up balkanizing under a severe crisis. The US was 85-90% White until the 1970's so it doesn't count.
English is one of the most "diverse" languages there is - "white" is a nonsensical, globalist census bureau term which doesn't acknowledge the actual ethnic diversity of countries like America (a person of British heritage and a person of French heritage).
Most conflict today and historically are between the same "races" but different cultures (e.x. English and French, English and Irish, Japanese and Chinese, and so on).
Conflicts based on "race or blood" rather than culture, and low racial diversity is the hallmark of impoverished, 3rd world countries such as Sub-Saharan Africa, North Korea, and so on.
This is why you shouldn't use Stormfront or 8chan posts written by trolls as a substitute for actual knowledge.
SJW's aren't influential? Then debate SJW's on Twitter over biological differences between men and women.
Use your full legal name and your picture along with references to the company you work at and/or the university you're attending.
Go debate some Neo-Nazi trolls on 8chan or Daily Stormer over interracial marriage or immigration; use your full legal name and your picture along with references to the company you work for and/or the university you're attending.
*Yawn.
Anyone who says stuff like this is blatantly dishonest.
No, you're just a gullible idiot - the sensationalist mass media which capitalizes on broadcasting the antics of "SJWs" (because it sells and appeals to fear and anger rather than reason) is more influential than any of the "SJWs" themselves are.
Steven Pinker is a prominent and influential scientist / evolutionary psychologist in academia, most "SJW Twitter trolls" are emotionally stunted, barely-literate manbabies/womenbabies who masturbate to Steven Universe porn in their mom's basement - most of them are incels who just identify as gay/bi/trans/attack helicopter thinking that it'll help them escape their involuntary celebacy, but it rarely works, or at best just allows them to creep their way into a miserable trailer trash "marriage" with an equally maladjusted individual ( the "bare minimum" requirements to marry or enter a relationship being less than is required to get a GED or a driver's license).
A huge percentage of popular/mainstream entertainment is full of content which would make a die-hard SJW triggered or pissed. and it all gets a much broader audience in the US and the rest of the world than pretty much any fringe SJW quackery does (in fact, I don't know of a single prominent "SJW" freak of nature who I ever would of heard of if some sensationalist, right-wing leaning media wasn't fearmongering about it to begin with).
So no, I'm not impressed.
Either that, or by "SJW" you don't just mean critical theory or some fringe subject like that, but you're so off the radar that 99.99% of the real world is "SJW". (Which isn't any different than SJWs who think that 99.99% of reality is a racist/sexist/homophobic/cis/white/Christian/male conspiracy theory).
For example, controversy over discussing the biological/evolutionary aspects of human nature is not limited to modern "SJWs/feminists"; some of it is a holdover from puritanical, Victorian-era sentiments regarding the human body, so if anything it has more in common with social conservative and/or religious sentiments than it does "SJWs".
(Same with "MRA/MGTOW" arguments in regards to alimony or child support which they label as "feminist", when if anything many of the laws in question are rooted in arguably outdated social conservative sentiments from the 1800s and before, in which men were generally assumed to be the main or sole income provider; or ironically, rooted in biological differences themselves - such as assuming that women were the better caretakers by default due being the ones who biologically bore the children.
I recall there was another dude on this forum who claimed that age of consent laws that prohibited marrying 12 year old girls were "feminist" (while ironically having Sailor Moon as his avatar - a "strong female protagonist" who performs "traditionally male roles") - this is why almost no one who regularly uses and abuses buzzwords like "feminism, SJW" to basically just mean "anything the don't like" is worth having a serious discussion with.
Nor are SJW trolls who use trendy buzzwords like "white/male/cis/homophobe/transphobe/MRA/PUA/Christian/racist/sexist/blahblahblah" to merely refer to "reality" or "any aspect of reality which they don't like.
Usually it's Leftists who say SJW's and Cancel Culture aren't influential and bad, you're the only "Conservative" I've met who denies that fact.
I don't keep up with crappy buzzwords like "Cancel Culture". I also don't prefer to sit around "debating" SJW internet trolls over "sex/gender differences" at the expense of actually getting laid - especially if I'm not able to actually apply the differences to any meaning real-world context, and it's just about trying to "win" an argument with trolls moreso than anything else.
"People who want taxpayer-funded corporate monopolies to stop censoring political rivals are the same as the Soviets"
What the fuck did I just read? Lick SJW boots harder,
You said that Trump was barred from communication, that's bullshit.
Trump has access to email, phone, texting, televised broadcasts, or plenty of other social media sites. Private businesses have no legal obligation to give anyone a platform at their own expense; free speech doesn't apply to private businesses, whether it's Trump, SJWs, or anyone else. Trump and others on the right have more than enough money to invest in new media platforms if they believe they're being censored.
I don't buy your rhetoric about "taxpayer funded corporate monopolies either.
Show me a mono-ethnic state larger than a city-state that didn't have this happen to it at some point. If you play the "muh continuity" card: Imperial China then qualifies and your own argument's shot to shit.
Almost every first world country is more racially diverse than 3rd world countries like North Korea, Sub-Saharan Africa, Cambodia, etc.
Conflicts between "race and blood" as opposed to culture or ideology are the hallmarks of 3rd world or impoverished living conditions (as well as hallmarks of gang violence).
Most conflicts today and historically in more developed nations have been over culture/religion/ideology, not "race" or purely physical attributes. (Such as most of the historical wars in Europe, wars between Japan and China or Korea, and so on).
