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.

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.

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.

johnmedina999 wrote:

It actually is, it's called for in the Communist Manifesto.

All your other points are solid, though.

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?

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?

Blitzfrog wrote:

Lets change the topic to what type of potato do you think you're.

Madvillain wrote:

A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.

No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..

Tae wrote:

Madvillain wrote:

A consensus will never be achieved, let's face it.

No one's willing to change the topic either anyway, so..

We just need Kisses to post another asian girl who he considers "perfection" tbh

Raspberriel wrote:

We won't get a consensus there either, js

Tae wrote:

Raspberriel wrote:

We won't get a consensus there either, js

Well, that's true tbh. At least there'd be a more agreed view there.

Dawnsday wrote:

I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead

Hika wrote:

Dawnsday wrote:

I wish the mafia subforum wasnt so dead

We got lives

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.

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?

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?

Brian OA wrote:

pic

FuZ wrote:

muslims should be removed from earth

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I just feel like a lot of alt-right politics are generally based on "feels" instead of actual statistics.

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.

Brian OA wrote:

Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least.

DaddyCoolVipper wrote:

Brian OA wrote:

Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.

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.

B1rd wrote:

but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college

Brian OA wrote:

Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering

Raspberriel wrote:

Brian OA wrote:

Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering

well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeah

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.

Raspberriel wrote:

okay, gonna sit this one out

I've already had this debate here

Raspberriel wrote:

Brian OA wrote:

Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering

well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeah

B1rd wrote:

I've heard that the "if 3 million illegals voted" claim has some substance. Don't just write something off without evidence.

And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.

Raspberriel wrote:

okay, gonna sit this one out

I've already had this debate here

Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.

B1rd wrote:

And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.

Kisses wrote:

@Mahogany

At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?

Zain Sugieres wrote:

Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders

Kisses wrote:

@Mahogany

At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?

B1rd wrote:

Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.

Zain Sugieres wrote:

Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders

Mahogany wrote:

friendly reminder that you don't have to identify your gender in a binary manner

Erlkonig wrote:

I checked I had a swinging dong down there which makes it kinda hard to identify myself a woman or agender or a fox.

Kisses wrote:

I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not

Brian OA wrote:

But who is to say what makes one a dude or not, or even what 100% dude/dudette entails?

Kisses wrote:

I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not

Blitzfrog wrote:

If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.

Blitzfrog wrote:

If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.

lol wrote:

fuck off blitzfrog

Hika wrote:

what kinda logic ^

Foxtrot wrote:

Blitz you should probably work on your bait game if you want the same amount of attention as before

Raspberriel wrote:

Deez nuts on your chin

[youtube]JUST the video ID here (the characters that come after ?v=)[/youtube]

Raspberriel wrote:

Because people seem to have trouble lately with YouTube embedding:

[youtube]JUST the video ID here (the characters that come after ?v=)[/youtube]

Raspberriel wrote:

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.)

B1rd wrote:

I didn't see the left protesting Obama's dropping of 10,000 bombs in the middle east. Let's see, Obama kills thousands of innocent civilians including women and children? Silence.

B1rd wrote:

What myth am I perpetuating? I am citing sources provided directly by the government.

B1rd wrote:

But I still get the feeling from liberals that Obama is "can do no wrong" type of guy, when with Trump, any flaw, existent or not, is blown out of proportion 10-fold.

B1rd wrote:

why is it unreasonable for Americans to want to protect themselves from that?

B1rd wrote:

I get the feeling that liberal have already made Trump to be Hitler in their mind

B1rd wrote:

I think that Trump can make America great again

B1rd wrote:

the way things are going he's only going to make half of America great.

Brian OA wrote:

These discussions could stand to use more citations, at the very least.