Did I ever say I'm literally struggling like some random third-world child right now? I didn't. Also, JonTron pulled this same shit a few weeks ago.Kisses wrote:
lol. Hard times living in a first world country rightRaspberriel wrote:
Mostly because on the internet, they're 10x worse as if you meet with an average one irl. At least you have a chance of having a decent conversation irl than over the internet, where they just say "lol libruhl tears amiritre #pepe #tcot #maga #altright"
I'll probably lighten up on this soon enough, but I don't know when. The past few months have broken me in a few ways, tbh. Like, before the election, I don't think I've ever told someone to kill themselves or even use "kys," but that's went out the window.
I'll probably just deactivate Twitter tbh
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,670
picky picky_old
I never said nor implied you did at all. Damn, I guess I'll back out, I don't want to lose a limb in this strifeRaspberriel wrote:
Did I ever say I'm literally struggling like some random third-world child right now? I didn't. Also, JonTron pulled this same shit a few weeks ago.
big suck
Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA
picky picky_old
o boi u just became the even bigger brutebig suck wrote:
Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA
big suck wrote:
Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA
Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically???Holy shit why would you be this mad at that hahahaha
wtfbig suck wrote:
Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA
Lol, you're being triggered, and going on a tirade about memes. Honestly it's pretty funny. When did memes hurt anyone? I attribute all these liberals being triggered, emotionally shattered, "I'm literally shaking right now", to a thin-skinned, entitled generation that has a severe intolerance for the other side. It's the type of behavior that motivates left-wingers to try and shut down rallies and speeches by people they don't like. Have a bit more tolerance would you.
Also I have no idea who JonTron is or why he is relevant.
Also, I'm pretty sure that most Trump supporters are 16+, just putting it out there.
Also I have no idea who JonTron is or why he is relevant.
All my fallacies are logical. And Foxtrot isn't being angry, just pointing out irrational reactions about Trump. So far there hasn't been any arguments about any specific subjects. But if you find something to disprove, feel free to go ahead and disprove it, you're a big guy.big suck wrote:
Just finished reading the entirety of this discussions and boy of boy there are so many illogical fallacies in place, foxtrot is quick to anger and responds impulsively the the rest of you have been firing that flame and giving him the reason to "disprove" your arguments which he has been massively failing to do so. Really Foxtrot just because somebody acts like a 12 year old over the internet, that really makes them 12 automatically??? what kind of assumption is that even...? anywho all of you are idiots that have no idea what you're talking about and just stirring drama for no reason lmao HAHAHAAHA
Also, I'm pretty sure that most Trump supporters are 16+, just putting it out there.
big suck
Feel free to go back to Reddit if this place triggers you too much.
Funny how tolerance only entered the picture again once your side came to power.
big suck
im sorry if I ever indicated being triggered, hate to dissapoint you but im not. Youre just hiding behind some lies to try an make me look bad. What does that say about you? Insulting s9me guy for adding his two cent, thats what I call childishB1rd wrote:
Feel free to go back to Reddit if this place triggers you too much.
Hey now, you can't just leave the shitstorm you created just because other people laughed at you. Take responsibility of itbig suck wrote:
then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall
Definitely a more accurate statement than mine. I think saying 12 was a bit exaggerated. Then again, anyone who has the chance to vote and doesn't shouldn't be taken seriously at all, regardless of age.B1rd wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure that most Trump supporters are 16+, just putting it out there.
There are different reasons as to why some people don't vote other than stubborness, ignorance, ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (god I hate typing this line) etcFoxtrot wrote:
Then again, anyone who has the chance to vote and doesn't shouldn't be taken seriously at all, regardless of age.
b1rd claims to be an anarchist yet supports trump who is quite clearly extremely authoritan
I'm pretty sure he has literally no values at all
I'm pretty sure he has literally no values at all
I support trump. Come at me Maho.
fuck off coldtooth
It's not about reason either. It's about adult citizens who complain about their own country and yet they don't go out and vote (and that's how Trump obviously won; a lot of the people were fed up with the status quo and they went out and done something about it. But it seems like no one on the left wants to admit that -- calling everyone racist is much easier). It's sad seeing people wasting away their rights like that, because people in other countries would kill for a chance like that.Kisses wrote:
There are different reasons as to why some people don't vote other than stubborness, ignorance, ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (got I hate typing this line) etcFoxtrot wrote:
Then again, anyone who has the chance to vote and doesn't shouldn't be taken seriously at all, regardless of age.
ungratefulness that people died for to give them the right to vote (got I hate typing this line)That's pretty ungrateful of you
Anyone who voted trump is either completely ignorant of the candidate they're voting for, or willing to accept racism in exchange for the rest of his policies. Either one is unacceptable imo. And if they wanted a change in the status quo, they're fucking retarded for voting for the billionare businessman.
And yeah, a lot of people were really fucking complacent too. Polls didn't help with that either. The one good thing coming out of this presidency is that it's motivated a lot of youths to get involved with politics.
And yeah, a lot of people were really fucking complacent too. Polls didn't help with that either. The one good thing coming out of this presidency is that it's motivated a lot of youths to get involved with politics.
I never thought it was possible to change the status quo through voting. And if all choices are bad, then there's not much reason to vote. In Australia voting is mandatory, which is pretty shitty because it just forces uninterested and uninformed people make uninformed choices.
I'm still trying to work out why you hate Trump and his supporters so much. Do you think they're genuinely evil, or is it just some intellectual disagreement. Because the hates he's getting really isn't proportionate to anything he's done.
Well, there's "tolerance", as in, being tolerant of Muslims, LGQTBQQ, terror attacks, other liberals, and people and groups you already like. Then there's the tolerance of allowing people you don't necessarily agree or with or like the right to speak, give them basic respect, and not use violence against them. Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side, and have been pretty hypocriticial in things like being tolerant of Muslims, but not Christians. Respecting free speech and such, has mainly been a virtue of the right.Raspberriel wrote:
Funny how tolerance only entered the picture again once your side came to power.
I'm still trying to work out why you hate Trump and his supporters so much. Do you think they're genuinely evil, or is it just some intellectual disagreement. Because the hates he's getting really isn't proportionate to anything he's done.
So, you called us a bunch of idiots, yes I would say that was an insult and yes I would say you are acting triggered. What lies am I hiding behind? Are you actually gonna add something useful to the conversation or are you going to leave like you said you would?big suck wrote:
then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall
Well done, I see your 10,000 hours in MS paint has paid off.Dawnsday wrote:
You don't tolerate intolerance. That's how tolerance dies. Intolerance should not be tolerated under any circumstance.B1rd wrote:
Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side
You don't protest free speech with free speech, that's how free speech dies. Attempting to deny free speech should not be tolerated under any circumstance.
e; this is a reference to the berkely milo riots :-D
e; this is a reference to the berkely milo riots :-D
big suck
So, you called us a bunch of idiots, yes I would say that was an insult and yes I would say you are acting triggered. What lies am I hiding behind? Are you actually gonna add something useful to the conversation or are you going to leave like you said you would?big suck wrote:
then again.. who am I to banter over a bunch of idiots. this board is for the "not so logical discussions" afterall
Well done, I see your 10,000 hours in MS paint has paid off.[/quote]Dawnsday wrote:
You're lying by saying I am "triggered" never once did I express being in the act of "triggered" so really what my point im getting at here is that you have nothing to stand on to try an gather people against me.
Also that is a lovely photo <3
Yes you doDawnsday wrote:
You don't protest free speech with free speech
That's literally the point of free speech
Making voting mandatory is stupid, but it should be a right regardless. People have the right to throw away their rights, so I can't exactly do anything about it but except have an opinion on their character. Unfortunately, there's always going to be all kinds of misinformed people who are gonna vote, but we can't exactly throw democracy out of the window because of that.B1rd wrote:
I never thought it was possible to change the status quo through voting. And if all choices are bad, then there's not much reason to vote. In Australia voting is mandatory, which is pretty shitty because it just forces uninterested and uninformed people make uninformed choices.
Out of curiosity, but why do you keep quoting one sentence out of an entire paragraph and make an argument out of that, instead of just answering to the paragraph itself?Mahogany wrote:
You don't tolerate intolerance. That's how tolerance dies. Intolerance should not be tolerated under any circumstance.B1rd wrote:
Liberals have never been tolerant against people of the other side
That's some good stuffDawnsday wrote:
Using the RIGHT to your free speech to deny someone else's RIGHT to free speech is uh. No that's not quite how it works
picky picky_old
You missed theMahogany wrote:
Yes you doDawnsday wrote:
You don't protest free speech with free speech
That's literally the point of free speech
Attempting to deny free speech should not be tolerated under any circumstance.
The right to free speech applies to the government, not to private entitiesDawnsday wrote:
Using the RIGHT to your free speech to deny someone else's RIGHT to free speech is uh. No that's not quite how it works
If the college wants to shut down mr snowflake's hateful speeches, they can absolutely do that for any reason they want. Perfectly acceptable
If trump says people can't protest, or starts threatening them with defunding, THAT is an attack on the right to free speech, because now the government is influencing what people say. Which he did, by the way - much more serious than anything the college or protesters ever did.
Free speech never came into the berkley situation at all. The alt-right just wants an excuse to spread hate, and then cry "muh rights" when it doesn't even apply to them.
As always, xkcd explains this better than I ever could
Maybe we're skimming over the fact the talk Milo was going to give was not boycotted, it was outright destroyed. Riots took place, Communist propaganda was spread, Free speech boundaries were crossed.
As always Sargon of Akkad explains this better than me because my english is too shaky to give a /full/ speech here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyC80feMcgU
As always Sargon of Akkad explains this better than me because my english is too shaky to give a /full/ speech here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyC80feMcgU
What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by. They had it to shut down because the riots were getting out of hand. Even the chancellor of the university defended Milo and his right to free speech. It wasn't the university that drove him out, it was the students themselves. How could he possibly get an event there if the university didn't even want him, as you claimed lmaoMahogany wrote:
The right to free speech applies to the government, not to private entities
If the college wants to shut down mr snowflake's hateful speeches, they can absolutely do that for any reason they want. Perfectly acceptable
If trump says people can't protest, or starts threatening them with defunding, THAT is an attack on the right to free speech, because now the government is influencing what people say. Which he did, by the way - much more serious than anything the college or protesters ever did.
Free speech never came into the berkley situation at all. The alt-right just wants an excuse to spread hate, and then cry "muh rights" when it doesn't even apply to them.
Also, I'm pretty sure the right to free speech also applies to private entities, or we must have pretty different ideas about "free speech".
big suck
And those disguised attackers are despicable.Dawnsday wrote:
Maybe we're skimming over the fact the talk Milo was going to give was not boycotted, it was outright destroyed. Riots took place, Communist propaganda was spread, Free speech boundaries were crossed.
Doesn't change the fact that the peaceful protestors have a point, and it was the uni's choice to shut it down based on reaction. Yes, it was a boycott/complaint type of "we don't want to listen to you".
Clearly they weren't in touch with the student body.Foxtrot wrote:
What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by.
If the right to free speech applied to private entities, you couldn't get banned from any forum, for example. This place bans users. Reddit bans users. Even 4chan bans users. Private entities absolutely don't have to uphold the right to free speech.Foxtrot wrote:
Also, I'm pretty sure the right to free speech also applies to private entities, or we must have pretty different ideas about "free speech".
He didn't get an event there though, precisely because the university didn't want him. They outright protested his talk.Foxtrot wrote:
How could he possibly get an event there if the university didn't even want him
Do you have anything to disprove my point other than rhetoric of what you think free spech means?
>unis choice
i dont think they were given much choice, it was a state of "if this goes ahead we will continue to loot, assault and generally be a nuisance to not only the university but the outside communities"
The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time, Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same. The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.
Peaceful protest would just be not going, in fact the ENTIRE logical approach from libs to this situation should've been, not going and not caring, it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical
i dont think they were given much choice, it was a state of "if this goes ahead we will continue to loot, assault and generally be a nuisance to not only the university but the outside communities"
The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time, Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same. The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.
Peaceful protest would just be not going, in fact the ENTIRE logical approach from libs to this situation should've been, not going and not caring, it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical
Yes they were.Dawnsday wrote:
i dont think they were given much choice
They could've said no
They could've called in police
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speeches
They didn't take part, for one. Don't you think if they agreed, they'd have joined in?Dawnsday wrote:
The peaceful protestors did nothing to denounce this at the time
Trump didn't denounce the quebec shooter after it became known they weren't muslim. Does that automatically mean trump supports the shooting of muslims? As much as I hate the man, no, it doesn't mean that, and it's a stupid argument to make.
"These two things are the same because I say they are"Dawnsday wrote:
Antifa and the "peaceful protestors" as far as I am concerned, are one and the same.
Hey - you don't get to decide this, buddy. Otherwise, I can turn around and say "All trump supporters are the same as that quebec shooter and want to exterminate all muslims"
They could have not told the police to stand down. They could have done nothing. They had plenty of choices, and they made one. Which was, in my opinion, the right choice.Dawnsday wrote:
The university was given no choice. The police were told to stand down.
That's a boycott, not a protest. There was a sizable peaceful protest going on, with a separate rogue element doing their own thing.Dawnsday wrote:
Peaceful protest would just be not going
"Hey guys ignore it and it'll go away"Dawnsday wrote:
it would have been a place where Milo spoke to roughly 100 people, instead it broke national (and international) news and now Milo's book is a bestseller, the protest was a failure and was counterlogical
Inaction is the entire reason Trump got elected, you dolt. I don't give a shit if this gives Milo attention, nor should anyone else. He's drawing attention to the worst side of the alt-right, and sabotaging his own movement - which is great. I hope he keeps doing his thing, people keep protesting him, and he keeps getting shut down, like the rest of his shitty movement.
This is not what free speech is about, and has nothing to do with free speech. Great job showing that you're absolutely clueless as to what that means.
Jesus, why do you have to make it so hard to reply to you. Is this another tactic of yours
But by your logic, private entities don't apply to free speech. So if the university wanted him there for a conference, the students had no right to be opposed to that.Mahogany wrote:
Clearly they weren't in touch with the student body.Foxtrot wrote:
What? The only reason why Milo was in UC Berkeley is because the university was ok with him coming by.
Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideasMahoganyt wrote:
If the right to free speech applied to private entities, you couldn't get banned from any forum, for example. This place bans users. Reddit bans users. Even 4chan bans users. Private entities absolutely don't have to uphold the right to free speech.
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speechesThey also rely on the students financially, so yeah, no shit they'd follow their best interest.
Having to do a full reponse in 2017
alright let's do it
You at the time DEFENDED antifa and said it was their free speech (even though they were destroying shit lmao), Not one leftist said "wow this is wrong what the fuck is going on here??", You all held your tongues because antifa's views aligned with yours.
Lol.
alright let's do it
Yes they were.They DID the mayor literally told the police to stand down
They could've said no
They could've called in police
But they're smart enough to realize that the student body is what makes up the school's identity, not the management decisions, and they realized their school did not want to hold such hateful speeches
They didn't take part, for one. Don't you think if they agreed, they'd have joined in?
Trump didn't denounce the quebec shooter after it became known they weren't muslim. Does that automatically mean trump supports the shooting of muslims? As much as I hate the man, no, it doesn't mean that, and it's a stupid argument to make.
You at the time DEFENDED antifa and said it was their free speech (even though they were destroying shit lmao), Not one leftist said "wow this is wrong what the fuck is going on here??", You all held your tongues because antifa's views aligned with yours.
"These two things are the same because I say they are"Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues, there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo"", all that happened was people sat idly by and egged on Antifa as Antifa rampaged through center street.
Hey - you don't get to decide this, buddy. Otherwise, I can turn around and say "All trump supporters are the same as that quebec shooter and want to exterminate all muslims"
They could have not told the police to stand down. They could have done nothing. They had plenty of choices, and they made one. Which was, in my opinion, the right choice.No, the mayor told them to stand down. Eventually the choice was changed and the police forcibly dispersed everyone with rubber bullets and teargas, sadly the event was already cancelled by this point.
Lol.
Thanks.
Ahh, so the mayor is the smart one. Credit to themDawnsday wrote:
They DID the mayor literally told the police to stand down
Nah fam I denounced the violent rioters as much as the next guy. The peaceful protestors were fine thoDawnsday wrote:
You at the time DEFENDED antifa and said it was their free speech
I did, and that proves your shit wrong right thereDawnsday wrote:
Not one leftist said "wow this is wrong what the fuck is going on here?
I didn't. I voiced my opposition to the violence, you fucking dolt. Don't speak for shit you can't prove, or don't even know about.Dawnsday wrote:
Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues
There were, you dolt. There were both peaceful and violent contingents. I stand fully against the violent ones, and fully behind the peaceful ones.Dawnsday wrote:
there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo""
thats an odd way to spell "thankfully"Dawnsday wrote:
sadly
The students are what make up the university. A university isn't "just" the management, students are an important part of the school identity. So yea, they had plenty of right.Foxtrot wrote:
But by your logic, private entities don't apply to free speech. So if the university wanted him there for a conference, the students had no right to be opposed to that.
Also, the uni could've just ignored them, too. That'd have been fine.
You outright admit you were wrong yet you keep spouting bullshit about how you still feel justifiedFoxtrot wrote:
Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideas
why are you so delusional
You two don't even begin to understand the very basic concepts of free speech and it's honestly embarassing. People like yous are part of the problem with democracy
If he's actively pushing Nazism i.e. in a speech then... eh? It's not THAT bad- it's forcibly stopping him from spreading hate speech-, although I'd prefer him to just get arrested. Vigilantism is a dangerous road, and hate speech is illegal already, so.Dawnsday wrote:
is it ethical to punch a nazi
If he's just existing in the street? Fuck no, get out
btw Mahogany PLEASE stop doing the line-by-line quote responses please. Just respond normally, it allows much better conversation than splitting everything into easier-to-argue-against quotes.
good advice thank you 
Jesus christ.Mahogany wrote:
You outright admit you were wrong yet you keep spouting bullshit about how you still feel justifiedFoxtrot wrote:
Yeah, they ban users because it's within their right, but just because a ban is gonna make you stop going to a certain location, it doesn't mean people are gonna stop having their own ideas
why are you so delusional
I'm comparing those forums to the way businesses have their right of free speech. For example, they can deny service to any customer they want, for whatever reason, but that doesn't mean that the denied clients stop having that right as of that moment. That's the point I was trying to make because you said private entities shouldn't uphold right of free speech. And besides, businesses are also private entities, and so are forums, but that's another point.
The students are what make up the university. A university isn't "just" the management, students are an important part of the school identity. So yea, they had plenty of right.Kind of hard to ignore riots.
Also, the uni could've just ignored them, too. That'd have been fine.
Dawnsday wrote:
Missing the point. By a mile. You all held your tongues, there was no peaceful protest of "let's all just put up signs of "stop milo"", all that happened was people sat idly by and egged on Antifa as Antifa rampaged through center street.
You're wrong here. If you watch any videos of the violence, you'll see plenty of people shouting at the antifa extremists to stop, and that violence is wrong. There were plenty of lawful peaceful protesters doing fine.
Also, it's not actually bystanders' responsibility to intervene when stuff like that happens, generally.
Fuck anyone who was encouraging or participating in those actions though. They're cowards.
By no means is there a separate type of speech called "hate speech" that isn't covered under free speech. Is someone inciting violence? Then that is not covered under free speech, which is rather for the exchange of ideas. But simply giving a speech advocating for Naziism is not something that isn't protected by free speech.
"There are certain well-defined and limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise a Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous and the insulting or 'fighting' words – those which by their very utterances inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."B1rd wrote:
By no means is there a separate type of speech called "hate speech" that isn't covered under free speech. Is someone inciting violence? Then that is not covered under free speech, which is rather for the exchange of ideas. But simply giving a speech advocating for Naziism is not something that isn't protected by free speech.
Nazism explicitly incites violence, so it's not protected by free speech, iirc.
It's definitely banned here and elsewhere in Europe, although I'm not entirely sure about America. Legality of stuff over there seems pretty random
Dawnsday wrote:
Islam explicitly incites violence
We're not talking about Islam
Don't even.Dawnsday wrote:
Islam explicitly incites violence
There is nothing about National Socialism that inherently advocates for violence. You can't just say that it does in some vague, disconnected sort of way and then claim that it is justification to shut down that entire political scene. Using that justification you could shut down pretty much any political group, or even pastors giving a sermons because the Bible 'incites violence' in some passages, therefor the entire religion does.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuesti ... n/ddbrmny/
In Islamic faith, it is not believed that Quran was given to Muhammad in entirety like Ten Commandments. Rather, it was gradually told by God to Muhammad over many years in response to the situations he and his followers were facing at the moment. It is, to make an analogy, a collection of case laws rather than a constitution. However, this collection often only has the verdicts, not the whole proceedings.This seemed pretty legit to me
There is an entire field of study dedicated to learning the history of Arabia at the time, understating the context at which a ruling was made and got included in Quran, and trying to figure out how it applies to the situations one can face today. Quran verses in isolation don't mean much. You have to consider which enemy they were at war with at the time the verse was added to Quran and what had they done to make God so angry to understand the ruling. At least that is the Islamic tradition followed by most Muslims. Contextual interpretation as opposed to literal. And that is why the Islamic world does not agree with ISIL's interpretation, which is basically trying to follow ancient case laws instead of interpreting and adapting them to a modern setting.
For example, there are more than five categories of kafir, and the only way to know which one a verse is referring to is to know its context. More progressive clergymen have interpreted that this word in the above verses refers to a category (kafir mo'aned harbi) that basically means those who are currently at war with Muslims because of their (Muslims') religion. Even conservative ones generally do not believe that it refers to all non-muslims.
I mean, what do Nazis do? What do neo-Nazis do?B1rd wrote:
There is nothing about National Socialism that inherently advocates for violence. You can't just say that it does in some vague, disconnected sort of way and then claim that it is justification to shut down that entire political scene. Using that justification you could shut down pretty much any political group, or even pastors giving a sermons because the Bible 'incites violence' in some passages, therefor the entire religion does.
Any ideology that claims racial superiority is dangerous and leads to genocide or other forms of oppression. They're violent.
I'm surprised to hear defense of Nazism from an ancap who thinks that fucking taxation is a form of violence.
I'm pretty sure b1rd is stupid enough to actually believe what he's saying there
He has zero values and he's already proven this. He sounds like he's been indoctrinated into a cult or something, or his parents are/were horribly abusive.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I'm surprised to hear defense of Nazism from an ancap who thinks that fucking taxation is a form of violence.
They believe in racial superiority, that's true. Genocide and oppression has happened under a Nazi government, but it's not intrinsically linked to Nazism itself. They're violent? Maybe some are, doesn't mean they all are or that it is inherently linked to the ideology. Honestly, I'm really sick of Nazism being brought up in every single political discussion and being treated as the boogeyman of political ideologies. Communism has killed far, far more people than Nazism did. It also advocates for the violent takeover of private property, and we have seen communists being violent both in the past and present. So does that mean that advocacy for Communism should be banned as well? I can even easily argue that our current system is based on violence, since it is, taxation and all that is enforced through the threat of violence. Do you see now how you're being inconsistent? Nazism has been specifically targeted as the worst political ideology to ever exist, when in reality it isn't a far different or any worse than a lot of others.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I mean, what do Nazis do? What do neo-Nazis do?
Any ideology that claims racial superiority is dangerous and leads to genocide or other forms of oppression. They're violent.
I'm surprised to hear defense of Nazism from an ancap who thinks that fucking taxation is a form of violence.
We actually have a precedent of this happening. There was a National Socialist party in America for some time that held some public speeches. I believe they were attacked by violent Jews, and the leader was eventually assassinated. No, I don't think that is justified.
And the racial superiority part has some truth to it, we have an abundance of evidence that makes it clear that some races are superior in certain areas to others. It's just the conclusion that one draws when looking at things empirically, with no bias. We've had a big discussion about this in ITT. Though the Nazis took that way too far with lots of pseudo-science. I think Hitler believed he could just walk over Russia because they were inferior slavs, and ignore America because it was full of jews and blacks.
But, in a lot of countries, talking about something like the race-IQ relationship would be classified as 'hate speech'. Realise that when I say people like Nazis shouldn't be attacked for speech, it's not because I'm advocating for Nazis. Blind and irrational hatred for anything just contributes to anti-rationalism and an anti-intellectual society.
P.S. About what you asked me about before; I did go searching for proof and data, but since good sources like that are hard and tedious to find I never finished getting enough to put up a post.
By saying that genocide and oppression have happened under Nazism (in the only time Nazism has ever been tried), you're basically admitting that Nazism causes this dangerous shit, no? I bet you don't let Communists have the same excuse (oh, REAL Communism has never been tried.). You bringing up death tolls under Communism helps prove that.B1rd wrote:
They believe in racial superiority, that's true. Genocide and oppression has happened under a Nazi government, but it's not intrinsically linked to Nazism itself. They're violent? Maybe some are, doesn't mean they all are or that it is inherently linked to the ideology. Honestly, I'm really sick of Nazism being brought up in every single political discussion and being treated as the boogeyman of political ideologies. Communism has killed far, far more people than Nazism did. It also advocates for the violent takeover of private property, and we have seen communists being violent both in the past and present. So does that mean that advocacy for Communism should be banned as well? I can even easily argue that our current system is based on violence, since it is, taxation and all that is enforced through the threat of violence. Do you see now how you're being inconsistent? Nazism has been specifically targeted as the worst political ideology to ever exist, when in reality it isn't a far different or any worse than a lot of others.
We actually have a precedent of this happening. There was a National Socialist party in America for some time that held some public speeches. I believe they were attacked by violent Jews, and the leader was eventually assassinated. No, I don't think that is justified.
And the racial superiority part has some truth to it, we have an abundance of evidence that makes it clear that some races are superior in certain areas to others. It's just the conclusion that one draws when looking at things empirically, with no bias. We've had a big discussion about this in ITT. Though the Nazis took that way too far with lots of pseudo-science. I think Hitler believed he could just walk over Russia because they were inferior slavs, and ignore America because it was full of jews and blacks.
But, in a lot of countries, talking about something like the race-IQ relationship would be classified as 'hate speech'. Realise that when I say people like Nazis shouldn't be attacked for speech, it's not because I'm advocating for Nazis. Blind and irrational hatred for anything just contributes to anti-rationalism and an anti-intellectual society.
P.S. About what you asked me about before; I did go searching for proof and data, but since good sources like that are hard and tedious to find I never finished getting enough to put up a post.
Not to mention Hitler was one of the founders of Nazism and so you can say that his actions are representative of the ideology in action. Marx wasn't in charge of the Communist revolution.
I also think that defenders of Stalinist Communism, i.e. Stalin apologists, are just as bad as Nazi apologists. They shouldn't be allowed near politics either, they're crazy and advocate for dangerous fascism.
Violent takeover of property isn't necessarily advocated in Communism either btw, if people vote themselves into that position then it's just a change in property law.
We also weren't talking about Communism in the first place, so I don't see why you're changing the subject and turning it into a rant about how Nazis are unfairly targeted for having an evil, dangerous ideology.
It also makes sense that Jews would violently resist Nazism since they'd be defending themselves from an ideology that oppresses them. Would it surprise you if black people violently resisted the KKK coming back and getting more powerful? It shouldn't, they'd be the ones most terribly affected by it.
I understand your point that free speech should let you say pretty much anything, but exceptions do need to be made for a reason. Ideologies like Nazism aren't good enough for humanity.
also, I just asked for evidence that immigrants commit more crime than natives. It shouldn't be hard to find if it's true. The opposite seems to be true, though, like I said.
It actually is, it's called for in the Communist Manifesto.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Violent takeover of property isn't necessarily advocated in Communism either btw, if people vote themselves into that position then it's just a change in property law.
All your other points are solid, though.
Oh, my mistake, sorry. I haven't read Marx's stuff yet, but I assumed that a violent takeover wouldn't exactly be necessary if the majority voted for Communism to be the country's economic system, since that's how democracy worksjohnmedina999 wrote:
It actually is, it's called for in the Communist Manifesto.
All your other points are solid, though.
You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus. In other news, how is everyone?
I tried to change topicFaust wrote:
You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus. In other news, how is everyone?
Thanks Faust for support
A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.
No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..
No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..
Lets change the topic to what type of potato do you think you're. I think I'm Pringles.
I'll never stop fighting bigotry and fascism, even in such an insignificant place as these forums. I don't expect to reach a consensus with them, either.Faust wrote:
You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus.
In other news, how is everyone?Pretty good actually
I've noticed I'm a lot better at expressing myself, and am also feeling much less sick right now.
I am THE potato. IrelandBlitzfrog wrote:
Lets change the topic to what type of potato do you think you're.
Re: B1rd asking why I have a burning disdain for DJT supporters -- just saw these two tweets that express my general sentiments about them:
"DT supporters are not going to come around. What they love about him is their own character flaw: never admitting you made a mistake."
"A lot of us are spending way too much time trying to appeal to the empathy of people who do not value empathy. We gotta back up on that."
Let's just disregard social issues, all the "PC police" talk, etc. for the time being, because if I didn't, this post would be five times as long. They don't care that he just reauthorized the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline, built by a company whose previous pipelines were responsible for 69 spills in the past 2 years, or that legislation preventing coal companies to dump their waste into rivers was just blocked. All because Trump, McConnell, etc. and a good portion of their voting base have some fetish for keeping coal mining relevant in a world where literally every other developed country is moving to other forms of generating energy. They don't care that they're destroying their own country's environment because "MUH FOSSIL FUEL JOBS." Hell, they probably don't know this even happened because the only news sources they listen to didn't report on it. Why? It all goes back to the first tweet I mentioned.
I don't see the first tweet as true for all Trump supporters, though. The supporters complaining about his repeal of the ACA (not just the people who thought Obamacare and the ACA were separate things), the few protests to Trump's travel ban that cropped up in red states, etc. show that not all of his supporters worship him like a messiah like I see everywhere on social media. But the ones that do, the ones that always rub it in your goddamn face on Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and presumably Facebook too, and can never formulate an argument beyond "LOLOLOL WE WON, LIBERALS BTFO" are the ones that piss me off to no end. (P.S. When I said yesterday, in my blind haste, that I "don't wanna see any Trump supporters happy ever again," those people are who I was talking about.)
"DT supporters are not going to come around. What they love about him is their own character flaw: never admitting you made a mistake."
"A lot of us are spending way too much time trying to appeal to the empathy of people who do not value empathy. We gotta back up on that."
Let's just disregard social issues, all the "PC police" talk, etc. for the time being, because if I didn't, this post would be five times as long. They don't care that he just reauthorized the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline, built by a company whose previous pipelines were responsible for 69 spills in the past 2 years, or that legislation preventing coal companies to dump their waste into rivers was just blocked. All because Trump, McConnell, etc. and a good portion of their voting base have some fetish for keeping coal mining relevant in a world where literally every other developed country is moving to other forms of generating energy. They don't care that they're destroying their own country's environment because "MUH FOSSIL FUEL JOBS." Hell, they probably don't know this even happened because the only news sources they listen to didn't report on it. Why? It all goes back to the first tweet I mentioned.
I don't see the first tweet as true for all Trump supporters, though. The supporters complaining about his repeal of the ACA (not just the people who thought Obamacare and the ACA were separate things), the few protests to Trump's travel ban that cropped up in red states, etc. show that not all of his supporters worship him like a messiah like I see everywhere on social media. But the ones that do, the ones that always rub it in your goddamn face on Twitter, Reddit, YouTube, and presumably Facebook too, and can never formulate an argument beyond "LOLOLOL WE WON, LIBERALS BTFO" are the ones that piss me off to no end. (P.S. When I said yesterday, in my blind haste, that I "don't wanna see any Trump supporters happy ever again," those people are who I was talking about.)
We just need Kisses to post another asian girl who he considers "perfection" tbhMadvillain wrote:
A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.
No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..
We won't get a consensus there either, jsTae wrote:
We just need Kisses to post another asian girl who he considers "perfection" tbhMadvillain wrote:
A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.
No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..
Well, that's true tbh. At least there'd be a more agreed view there.Raspberriel wrote:
We won't get a consensus there either, js
picky picky_old
We got livesDawnsday wrote:
I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead
Do not.Hika wrote:
We got livesDawnsday wrote:
I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead
Judging by my last posts, seems I slept for about 16 hours. Feels good.
I'm talking about communism because you seem intent on unfairly labeling Nazism as the worst political ideology. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of your position. Of course communism is violent, it's not like 100% will voluntarily hand over their property to the state. As I've already said, you can call lots of political ideologies violent. But instead of using "directly incites violence" as a basis for why it Nazism should be excluded from free-speech, you've basically shifted the goalposts and now you're saying "I think it's bad, therefore it should be excluded". That's not how free speech works, you combat words with words, and violence with violence. Your reasoning is little different from Antifa, who because they label Milo or Richard Spencer as 'nazis', gives them justification to use violence to stop them talking.
I think Islam is violent, and I think that people who advocate for unrestricted Muslim immigration are arguing for something that will cause violence and disorder in our society. Does that give me justification to use violence against anyone arguing for immigration?
I have founds lots and lots of anecdotal evidence, women being raped multiple times in different occasions, Rotherham, people working with new immigrants and giving account of how violent they, "no-go zones" where police are too afraid to patrol, etc. It's just hard to find 'official' statistics that give a link, because of reasons like: the studies are hidden behind paywalls, the evidence going against the official agenda. You know that the study you cited was made with the agenda of 'dispelling myths' about immigration and crime. Hardly unbiased. I mean it is somewhat more plausible that people from Mexico aren't that bad, but how can you really think that people from hardcore Muslim countries, countries with a completely different culture, with a low IQ, lots of human rights abuses, most of whom aren't even literate in their own language, do you really think these people would be an boon to Western countries?DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
By saying that genocide and oppression have happened under Nazism (in the only time Nazism has ever been tried), you're basically admitting that Nazism causes this dangerous shit, no? I bet you don't let Communists have the same excuse (oh, REAL Communism has never been tried.). You bringing up death tolls under Communism helps prove that.
Not to mention Hitler was one of the founders of Nazism and so you can say that his actions are representative of the ideology in action. Marx wasn't in charge of the Communist revolution.
I also think that defenders of Stalinist Communism, i.e. Stalin apologists, are just as bad as Nazi apologists. They shouldn't be allowed near politics either, they're crazy and advocate for dangerous fascism.
Violent takeover of property isn't necessarily advocated in Communism either btw, if people vote themselves into that position then it's just a change in property law.
We also weren't talking about Communism in the first place, so I don't see why you're changing the subject and turning it into a rant about how Nazis are unfairly targeted for having an evil, dangerous ideology.
It also makes sense that Jews would violently resist Nazism since they'd be defending themselves from an ideology that oppresses them. Would it surprise you if black people violently resisted the KKK coming back and getting more powerful? It shouldn't, they'd be the ones most terribly affected by it.
I understand your point that free speech should let you say pretty much anything, but exceptions do need to be made for a reason. Ideologies like Nazism aren't good enough for humanity.
also, I just asked for evidence that immigrants commit more crime than natives. It shouldn't be hard to find if it's true. The opposite seems to be true, though, like I said.
I'm talking about communism because you seem intent on unfairly labeling Nazism as the worst political ideology. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of your position. Of course communism is violent, it's not like 100% will voluntarily hand over their property to the state. As I've already said, you can call lots of political ideologies violent. But instead of using "directly incites violence" as a basis for why it Nazism should be excluded from free-speech, you've basically shifted the goalposts and now you're saying "I think it's bad, therefore it should be excluded". That's not how free speech works, you combat words with words, and violence with violence. Your reasoning is little different from Antifa, who because they label Milo or Richard Spencer as 'nazis', gives them justification to use violence to stop them talking.
I think Islam is violent, and I think that people who advocate for unrestricted Muslim immigration are arguing for something that will cause violence and disorder in our society. Does that give me justification to use violence against anyone arguing for immigration?
it's almost like its not about the consensusFaust wrote:
You guys never tire of political back and forth, I'm almost impressed, since you've never reached a consensus. In other news, how is everyone?
*gasp*
i'm well, how are you? Really nice avatar. Care to send me the full pic? :>
It is for me.
I just feel like a lot of alt-right politics are generally based on "feels" instead of actual statistics. Like you said, you can only really find anecdotal evidence, which shouldn't mean much when it comes to policy making. The real world often doesn't match expectations. I think most people would assume immigrants commit more crime, but if data repeatedly shows that they don't, then that's just a fact that people will have to accept. Statistics are the most important thing when it comes to policymaking outside of a simple race to get the most votes, which I think is something that should be avoided in a proper democracy.B1rd wrote:
I have founds lots and lots of anecdotal evidence, women being raped multiple times in different occasions, Rotherham, people working with new immigrants and giving account of how violent they, "no-go zones" where police are too afraid to patrol, etc. It's just hard to find 'official' statistics that give a link, because of reasons like: the studies are hidden behind paywalls, the evidence going against the official agenda. You know that the study you cited was made with the agenda of 'dispelling myths' about immigration and crime. Hardly unbiased. I mean it is somewhat more plausible that people from Mexico aren't that bad, but how can you really think that people from hardcore Muslim countries, countries with a completely different culture, with a low IQ, lots of human rights abuses, most of whom aren't even literate in their own language, do you really think these people would be an boon to Western countries?
I'm talking about communism because you seem intent on unfairly labeling Nazism as the worst political ideology. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of your position. Of course communism is violent, it's not like 100% will voluntarily hand over their property to the state. As I've already said, you can call lots of political ideologies violent. But instead of using "directly incites violence" as a basis for why it Nazism should be excluded from free-speech, you've basically shifted the goalposts and now you're saying "I think it's bad, therefore it should be excluded". That's not how free speech works, you combat words with words, and violence with violence. Your reasoning is little different from Antifa, who because they label Milo or Richard Spencer as 'nazis', gives them justification to use violence to stop them talking.
I think Islam is violent, and I think that people who advocate for unrestricted Muslim immigration are arguing for something that will cause violence and disorder in our society. Does that give me justification to use violence against anyone arguing for immigration?
I also don't think I've ever said Nazism is the "worst" political ideology. There are definitely arguments to be made for it, but frankly I don't want to bother making them. I don't particularly care if Nazism is "the worst" or not, but I can definitely identify it as something that doesn't belong in society.
Directly inciting violence IS grounds for removing free speech of spreading ideology. I'm happy to say the same thing about gulag-denying Stalinists- they shouldn't be allowed a public platform either, because they're spreading dangerous shit that doesn't do anything good for society.
Antifa are different because they're vigilantes who use physical violence (attacking people) as opposed to the state properly dealing with them via things like warnings and, if necessary, jail. You can feel free to consider intervention by the state as "violence", but I feel like you're just arguing semantics at that point. Most people see the difference between people getting attacked in the streets for existing, and people being arrested for making a Nazi speech. It's a really clear contrast that you'd probably understand better if you were in Europe.
Also I read a really cool reddit post about Islam that explains how it doesn't quite advocate violence in a way that you'd expect. I haven't verified anything here though, because frankly Islam isn't interesting to me, but feel free to check it out if you want.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuesti ... n/ddbrmny/
Your last argument is flawed because that'd be an indirect cause of violence (Muslims coming into the country leading to more violence, which isn't even necessarily true) as opposed to a direct one (i.e. importing radical extremist muslims that want to bomb people). Vetting exists for a reason, and America's has presumably been one of the best in the world. Getting into America isn't easy.
That would be such a Fuz thoughFuZ wrote:
muslims should be removed from earth
I've seen this show up a lot lately in different contexts. I have to wonder who you're looking at in the alt-right that makes you feel this way, because you'll inevitably find people that place emotion over reason under any banner, typically being very loud, too.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I just feel like a lot of alt-right politics are generally based on "feels" instead of actual statistics.
I think the problem with "actual statistics" is that they are skewed very easily to fit a narrative. Properly informing yourself is a challenge nowadays since you can look up one thing and then find something else calling bullshit on it within the hour. It's easier to just settle with a comfortable conclusion than a hard look at the facts, especially when most sources won't even offer the latter.
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
The real world often doesn't match expectations. I think most people would assume immigrants commit more crime, but if data repeatedly shows that they don't, then that's just a fact that people will have to accept. Statistics are the most important thing when it comes to policymaking outside of a simple race to get the most votes, which I think is something that should be avoided in a proper democracy.
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least. I was looking into gerrymandering and it's pretty infuriating how much of the electoral process has been messed up from such a simple concept.Brian OA wrote:
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.
Boy I hope so.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least.
It's especially infuriating when you look at all the major Supreme Court cases about gerrymandering or redistricting -- nearly all of the parties doing the redistricting are Republican.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least. I was looking into gerrymandering and it's pretty infuriating how much of the electoral process has been messed up from such a simple concept.Brian OA wrote:
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.
There is definitely flaws in the US election system, but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college. It's not fair that California and New York dominate the elections. Voter fraud is also something that needs to be looked into.
Yes there isB1rd wrote:
but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college
If one person's vote is worth more than another's, that is profoundly undemocratic
well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeahBrian OA wrote:
Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering
I agree that the idea behind the electoral college is fine, honestly, it's just been turned into something grossly non-representative of America.B1rd wrote:
There is definitely flaws in the US election system, but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college. It's not fair that California and New York dominate the elections. Voter fraud is also something that needs to be looked into.
As for voter fraud: I mean, sure. From what I've heard, it isn't a big deal- and Trump quoting numbers like "If 3 million illegals hadn't voted, I would've won the majority" is full fucking retard, but yeah there should definitely always be research to see if it's a problem or not in the US.
Decent voter ID laws would also be fine. It's just a shame the ones that they've tried have disproportionately affected minorities so much (because the lawmaking itself was doing that on purpose, which is ridiculous)
Also: Both republicans and democrats partake in gerrymandering and it's despicable on both sides.
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
I've already had this debate here