It does because I've tried it. But of course, it depends on the person involved. I prefer to just cover or make an unpleasant face though.
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,703
Idk when someone smokes in front of my man, I gotta lay my pipe down and let them know I don't appreciate that shit 8^)
Get a better oneHika wrote:
Idk when someone smokes in front of my man, I gotta lay my pipe down and let them know I don't appreciate that shit 8^)
When I was younger, I had a militant anti-smoker attitude. Probably partly because I had to endure long drives in a van filled with old women who would smoke most of the way, which is not okay by the way. But while I think that smoking near other people is incredibly rude, it also makes my eyes role to the degree in which smoking has become the cool thing to hate these days. I'm sure all these people going on a moral crusade against smoking, constantly lobbying for more sin-taxes, higher age barrier, more disturbing imagery on smokes packages et cetera, could better spend their time on a thousand other issues in our society, rather than trying to stop people making their own choices about what they put into their bodies.
Although, I guess controlling people's lifestyle choices is a priority for liberals, since the consequences of bad decisions are to the cost of the state in a socialised healthcare scheme, rather than to the individual making the bad decisions in the form of higher health insurance premiums.
Although, I guess controlling people's lifestyle choices is a priority for liberals, since the consequences of bad decisions are to the cost of the state in a socialised healthcare scheme, rather than to the individual making the bad decisions in the form of higher health insurance premiums.
ITT: We attack Bird because of repressed feelings from our own childhood and because he doesn't respond back with insults we remain safe
I don't understand all the hate for B1rd/smoking here. I really don't like smoking, myself, but I think B1rd's right in the "people choosing what to do with their bodies" thing so long as they're not actually affecting other people. Smoking outside isn't a big deal, but smoking indoors outside of smoking areas is a problem, I think most people can agree with that.
I generally don't agree with most of what B1rd says, but you guys are overreacting and making a lot of sweeping statements about smokers that can't really be justified.
I generally don't agree with most of what B1rd says, but you guys are overreacting and making a lot of sweeping statements about smokers that can't really be justified.
It's true anyway. There's nothing bad with smokers that keep their business out of public places and stick to smoking in designated places. There's really nothing bad with that.
It only becomes a huge problem to me if it's being done in a jam-packed venue, which is incredibly common here.
It only becomes a huge problem to me if it's being done in a jam-packed venue, which is incredibly common here.
Why smoke when you can vap.... oh wait
People on an anti smoking crusade in this generation have just been indoctrinated to be so since elementary school.
Exactly. People doing it where they're affecting other people who don't really choose to be there are shitters, and shouldn't be allowed to do that.Madvillain wrote:
It's true anyway. There's nothing bad with smokers that keep their business out of public places and stick to smoking in designated places. There's really nothing bad with that.
It only becomes a huge problem to me if it's being done in a jam-packed venue, which is incredibly common here.
^^^^Madvillain wrote:
It's true anyway. There's nothing bad with smokers that keep their business out of public places and stick to smoking in designated places. There's really nothing bad with that.
It only becomes a huge problem to me if it's being done in a jam-packed venue, which is incredibly common here.
I don't mind if people smoke, just don't smoke where it says NO SMOKING.
You know, I'd have a higher regard for your opinions and reasoning if you'd agree on such a fairly moderate thing such as the necessity for free speech, rather than what you advocated for, which was a police state outlawing people espousing particular political points of view.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I generally don't agree with most of what B1rd says, but you guys are overreacting and making a lot of sweeping statements about smokers that can't really be justified.
I believe quite strongly about free speech and personal rights, actually. I'm happy to make exceptions when the cost to society is demonstrably too great for it to be worth it, though. Most of the world seems to agree, since practicing Nazism is generally banned.B1rd wrote:
You know, I'd have a higher regard for your opinions and reasoning if you'd agree on such a fairly moderate thing such as the necessity for free speech, rather than what you advocated for, which was a police state outlawing people espousing particular political points of view.
Saying that the cost is too great is silly, that implies that if you allow free speech then Nazism will suddenly spread like wildfire and everyone will like it. Obviously that's not gonna happen, and all you will do is drive people that hold those beliefs underground, and validate them by oppressing them for their political beliefs.
You're also been hypocritical, signalling out Nazism in particular to be banned. Then when I mentioned communism, you went on defending communism, and when pressed, you finally said that "Stalinist" or whichever it was type of communism should be banned. Well as far as I know, all communism is dependent on the takeover of all private property, which cannot be achieved without violence. Therefore, communism should be banned as well. What about socialism? That's basically a lesser form of communism, in which the means of production, i.e. people's businesses are violently seized. And in the same way any form of ethno-nationalism, should be banned, since it's linked to nazism.
Frankly, your attitude just highlights why we need free-speech, so we can actually have rational discussions with Nazis and find out why they think what they do, rather than contributing to this climate of speech repression. This is partly the reason we have kids going out on the streets and attacking "Nazis", because of this conditioning of hating Nazism, and anything vaguely associated with it. There are good points to National Socialism, of course it is too extreme in some areas, but as it is, the pendulum will swing much too far in the other direction and a lot of damage will be done before we can come to a compromise on extreme multiculturalism vs extreme race supremacy.
And also, you seem completely unaware of the way the government can abuse it's power. You say "free speech with this exception". Soon it will be "free speech with this and this exception", and then "free speech with this and this and this exception". Actually, I don't know why I'm even saying this because we don't even have free speech anymore. People have been arrested in many places in Europe simply for having anti-immigrant/muslims etc. opinions on Facebook. 1984, here we come.
You're also been hypocritical, signalling out Nazism in particular to be banned. Then when I mentioned communism, you went on defending communism, and when pressed, you finally said that "Stalinist" or whichever it was type of communism should be banned. Well as far as I know, all communism is dependent on the takeover of all private property, which cannot be achieved without violence. Therefore, communism should be banned as well. What about socialism? That's basically a lesser form of communism, in which the means of production, i.e. people's businesses are violently seized. And in the same way any form of ethno-nationalism, should be banned, since it's linked to nazism.
Frankly, your attitude just highlights why we need free-speech, so we can actually have rational discussions with Nazis and find out why they think what they do, rather than contributing to this climate of speech repression. This is partly the reason we have kids going out on the streets and attacking "Nazis", because of this conditioning of hating Nazism, and anything vaguely associated with it. There are good points to National Socialism, of course it is too extreme in some areas, but as it is, the pendulum will swing much too far in the other direction and a lot of damage will be done before we can come to a compromise on extreme multiculturalism vs extreme race supremacy.
And also, you seem completely unaware of the way the government can abuse it's power. You say "free speech with this exception". Soon it will be "free speech with this and this exception", and then "free speech with this and this and this exception". Actually, I don't know why I'm even saying this because we don't even have free speech anymore. People have been arrested in many places in Europe simply for having anti-immigrant/muslims etc. opinions on Facebook. 1984, here we come.
But nazism is already spreading like wildfire precisely because nobody's doing anything about it, hence your entire argument is invalid
You're citing RightWingNews, which itself sources Breitbart. Doesn't it ever bother you that the only stuff supporting your views tends to be dogshit tabloid "sources" instead of reputable organisations?
Anyway, onto your post. I don't believe Nazism would "spread like wildfire" or become a problem for society as a whole, but Nazi and other white-nationalist extremist groups commit violent attacks fairly often all over the world. Denying these people a chance to congregate and circlejerk their ideas into reality seems like a decent step for preventing people from turning into violent criminals like that.
I'm not against research into how or why people become Nazis, by the way. If anyone wants to do any decent investigative journalism, psychiatric studies, etc of people who end up in those situations, I'm all for it. I think it's not particularly hard to guess what leads those people into such circumstances, but I can't speak for everybody as if my guesses are facts there. Communism, on the other hand, doesn't see nearly the same level of violence associated with it. The only thing I tend to see from them is discussion. Maybe I'm wrong there, but they just don't seem as bad as people who directly call for violence against people for being who they are- Communism seems to be more about changing the ideology of society itself, which is more to do with personal choices than "Let's take these peoples' property because they're not the right colour of skin". Socialism again uses the same argument, but even more disassociated from violence.
As a society, we've decided to condemn Nazism wherever we can, because Nazis have consistently gone against the good of humanity in general. They've earned a place outside of society as a whole, basically.
I understand the government can abuse its power, but some element is faith is needed when dealing with other people- this is a sad fact of life, and I don't think you can propose any system that removes this fundamental flaw of people managing other people. I do indeed have to trust that the govt won't randomly decide "We suddenly hate X", and I'm happy to try and prevent it using arguments whenever I can if I see people going too far to the extreme left. I debate my leftist friends fairly often about this kind of thing.
edit: looked further into that "RightWingNews" website, and holy hell is that some cancer. Do you seriously read that stuff? I don't understand why alt-righters decry any media if they're immediately going to believe any godawful source that agrees with them.
Anyway, onto your post. I don't believe Nazism would "spread like wildfire" or become a problem for society as a whole, but Nazi and other white-nationalist extremist groups commit violent attacks fairly often all over the world. Denying these people a chance to congregate and circlejerk their ideas into reality seems like a decent step for preventing people from turning into violent criminals like that.
I'm not against research into how or why people become Nazis, by the way. If anyone wants to do any decent investigative journalism, psychiatric studies, etc of people who end up in those situations, I'm all for it. I think it's not particularly hard to guess what leads those people into such circumstances, but I can't speak for everybody as if my guesses are facts there. Communism, on the other hand, doesn't see nearly the same level of violence associated with it. The only thing I tend to see from them is discussion. Maybe I'm wrong there, but they just don't seem as bad as people who directly call for violence against people for being who they are- Communism seems to be more about changing the ideology of society itself, which is more to do with personal choices than "Let's take these peoples' property because they're not the right colour of skin". Socialism again uses the same argument, but even more disassociated from violence.
As a society, we've decided to condemn Nazism wherever we can, because Nazis have consistently gone against the good of humanity in general. They've earned a place outside of society as a whole, basically.
I understand the government can abuse its power, but some element is faith is needed when dealing with other people- this is a sad fact of life, and I don't think you can propose any system that removes this fundamental flaw of people managing other people. I do indeed have to trust that the govt won't randomly decide "We suddenly hate X", and I'm happy to try and prevent it using arguments whenever I can if I see people going too far to the extreme left. I debate my leftist friends fairly often about this kind of thing.
edit: looked further into that "RightWingNews" website, and holy hell is that some cancer. Do you seriously read that stuff? I don't understand why alt-righters decry any media if they're immediately going to believe any godawful source that agrees with them.
I just got the source from a Google search. Why are you so intent on hating sources like Breitbart? Of course only right-wing news sites would publish anything like this, it's not like left-wing sites would publish things that go against their agenda like that. You always demand super-high standards of evidence for anything that supports right-wing ideas.
Your claim that Nazi groups constantly commit terrorism is completely unfounded, and remember, we are talking about speech here, nothing else. Compare Muslim terror attacks vs right-wing terror attacks, you have to admit your bias when you will always defend Muslims when they commit acts of violence, but a tiny amount of right-wingers do any you claim they are committing violence everywhere. Since Islam is so much more violent, shouldn't we ban Islam? Or at least restrict immigration from Muslim countries? Would you be in favour in unlimited immigration from a full-on Nazi country?
Also, saying that communism isn't associated with violence is nothing but ignorance, even regardless of the millions it has killed in the past, there are lots and lots of examples of modern-day communists and left-wingers calling for the same thing, who want to kill nazis and want a violent revolution etc. I see it in 8ch.net/leftypol, on Youtube, and we've seen it recently on the streets like at Berkley. We even have evidence of organised terrorism, granted it's mostly anarchists, but they are still similar in that they're left-winger terrorists.
Basically, your view are just a result of indoctrination, since the Soviet Union infiltrated Western academia there has always been lots of sympathisers of communism, so even though it's an objectively worse ideology than nation socialism, people hate it much more. No, no faith should be given to the government, when it has shown time and time again that it so untrustworthy. You have completely failed to give a convincing argument about why we should not have free speech, besides vague arguments like "we can't let them organise". No. Here's the thing, your right to free speech should not be restricted based on the consensus of the majority at the time. The entire idea behind free speech is to stop minorities being persecuted by the government and the majority, because we have seen many times in the past that the majority has been wrong. If you don't defend the minority, you do not have free speech, and when you exclude any group from the right to free speech, you invalidate it entirely.
Your claim that Nazi groups constantly commit terrorism is completely unfounded, and remember, we are talking about speech here, nothing else. Compare Muslim terror attacks vs right-wing terror attacks, you have to admit your bias when you will always defend Muslims when they commit acts of violence, but a tiny amount of right-wingers do any you claim they are committing violence everywhere. Since Islam is so much more violent, shouldn't we ban Islam? Or at least restrict immigration from Muslim countries? Would you be in favour in unlimited immigration from a full-on Nazi country?
Also, saying that communism isn't associated with violence is nothing but ignorance, even regardless of the millions it has killed in the past, there are lots and lots of examples of modern-day communists and left-wingers calling for the same thing, who want to kill nazis and want a violent revolution etc. I see it in 8ch.net/leftypol, on Youtube, and we've seen it recently on the streets like at Berkley. We even have evidence of organised terrorism, granted it's mostly anarchists, but they are still similar in that they're left-winger terrorists.
Basically, your view are just a result of indoctrination, since the Soviet Union infiltrated Western academia there has always been lots of sympathisers of communism, so even though it's an objectively worse ideology than nation socialism, people hate it much more. No, no faith should be given to the government, when it has shown time and time again that it so untrustworthy. You have completely failed to give a convincing argument about why we should not have free speech, besides vague arguments like "we can't let them organise". No. Here's the thing, your right to free speech should not be restricted based on the consensus of the majority at the time. The entire idea behind free speech is to stop minorities being persecuted by the government and the majority, because we have seen many times in the past that the majority has been wrong. If you don't defend the minority, you do not have free speech, and when you exclude any group from the right to free speech, you invalidate it entirely.
I found a better response to b1rd's "muh free speech" argument since last time
The line of Tolerance ends at Intolerance
"The so-called paradox of freedom is the argument that freedom in the sense of absence of any constraining control must lead to very great restraint, since it makes the bully free to enslave the meek. The idea is, in a slightly different form, and with very different tendency, clearly expressed in Plato.
"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
Karl R. Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies
It's not about being right wing, it's about being demonstrably false and outright fabrication. It is not a legitimate news outlet and should not be treated as such by anyone.B1rd wrote:
I just got the source from a Google search. Why are you so intent on hating sources like Breitbart? Of course only right-wing news sites would publish anything like this
Capitalism has demonstrably caused more deaths than communism, yet you describe yourself as an ancap. Hypocrite.B1rd wrote:
Also, saying that communism isn't associated with violence is nothing but ignorance, even regardless of the millions it has killed in the past
Good morning.
You couldn't have picked a worse time to come in.Faust wrote:
Good morning.
Actually it's evening in actual good countries :p
jk, good morning!
jk, good morning!
@b1rd
so christian extremists have the highest kill per attack ratio
also while right terror might not be much of a problem in the US, it's a whole different thing in Germany and some other european states
we had cases of systematic murder after all and you can bet that the people who set fire on refugee acommodations werent communists
generally i share your opinion on the free speech thing but please fuck off with dumb statistics like that - such concepts need to hold weight without examples
so christian extremists have the highest kill per attack ratio
also while right terror might not be much of a problem in the US, it's a whole different thing in Germany and some other european states
we had cases of systematic murder after all and you can bet that the people who set fire on refugee acommodations werent communists
generally i share your opinion on the free speech thing but please fuck off with dumb statistics like that - such concepts need to hold weight without examples
I really want to stop you right there and point out that yet again you're using completely shit sources to back up your claims. You're just making yourself look retarded when you cite people like THIS as your evidence, dude. Can you please check your sources first before you start throwing them out there, expecting me to just blindly trust them?
And no, I don't "always demand super high standards of evidence from anything supporting right-wing ideas". I demand high standards of evidence from anyone I'm engaging in an argument with unless we're actually speaking on a purely subjective level, which I generally do when I'm not making huge, sweeping statements that SHOULD require well-founded evidence that didn't just amount to "Some random alt-right blog says so". You must surely be able to see that you're hurting your own argument every single time you link someone like that, right? Just try thinking twice whenever you're linking to "OATHKEEPERS.ORG" or "RightWingNews" or the personal youtube channel of some demonstrably fucking insane guy, or Sargon of Akkad, who I have personally lost a lot of faith in after watching him engage in a long debate with somebody on politics. He came across as someone who had no idea what he was talking about, especially regarding things like correlation vs causation in statistics (which, by the way, is a huge fucking issue in just about all right-wing media I see. Feels get prioritised WAY TOO HARD over good usage of statistics. I'm not even joking when I say that I believe right-wingers tend to be more emotional and less rational than left-wingers, although that's probably just because I don't see as much retarded stuff coming from the left in general- their extremists are less vocal, maybe.)
If you want to "compare Muslim terror attacks against right-wing terror attacks, we can just use this graph I found for you.
First off, I recognise that the data is comparing any islam-inspired terrorist attack with any other terrorist attack. From what I've seen, the "other" tends to be far-right extremists, at least recently.
So! You may look at this graph and say: Holy shit, Islam is out of control, look at all these terrorist attacks! But isn't that conveniently ignoring the entire political situation around groups like ISIS? It shouldn't be a surprise that people from that region are directly inspiring others around the world to "fight for them", considering their ideology of uniting a certain type of Muslim in a worldwide war and conquest. Of course something like that resonates with people, and I bet you any money that if the destabilised region was a majority-Christian, you'd be seeing the exact same thing among Christian extremists, especially the ones that felt utterly disillusioned with society.
This opinion is supported by the graph, which clearly shows that Islamic-inspired attacks have been a clear minority until a massive event like the fuckery in the middle-east has been happening.
On top of that, Muslims are generally demonised by a significant amount of people, which would understandably cause feelings of isolation and hatred- there's an obvious cause and effect there, and that's what leftists are generally trying to solve when they preach tolerance of Islam. They understand that painting millions and millions of people with a brush that only describes a tiny minority is ridiculous, and will cause issues with integration and help validate whatever shitty victim complex these kinds of people can have.
I think there's a perfectly valid argument to be made about these not being specifically related to Islam that I have never really heard discussed by alt-righters, just completely ignored: If there are so many Muslims living in the West, such as in America, that believe in this awful violent ideology where they want to kill apostates and such, then why aren't there massive increases in crime from Muslims doing exactly that? Terrorism isn't a particularly big threat to Americans right now, not at all. People suffer from WAY bigger issues than Terrorism if they're in the US. But people are so scared of it, they've had it so hyped up against them in the media, that the government ends up making retarded decisions like the ban in an attempt to appease the people- driving them to feel even further validated in their generally-unjustified hatred of Muslims, and making Muslims go through a lot of shit as a consequence. The demonstrably-not-a-big-deal crimerates of Muslims living peacefully in the West strongly suggests that they're integrating well with Western culture, which I assume is why right-wing websites have become increasingly desperate in their pushing of fake news over the recent years- the "54 no-go zones in Sweden" myth being one I've been particularly involved in researching, and surprise, it's complete bullshit.
But yeah, tl;dr: Terrorists from Islamic extremist groups lots lately sure, but they're definitely not a massive priority and don't seem to be related to the vast majority of Muslims. They seem to be a direct result of global events rather than their religion being evil. Right-wing attacks brought up as a counterpoint not to say "Right-wing are worse!!", just that you're ignoring their statistics in your irrational fear since they're not someone you can demonise as easily. I didn't really express that point very well since I got kind of sidetracked- there's important information about lone-wolf attacks that I can't find an easy graph for you to look at, annoyingly. But hopefully I made an argument there.
For the record, I'm very happy to say I'm in favour of banning ISIS demonstrations and convening of any group like that as well. Are you someone who wants those people to gather, for the sake of free speech, or do you see those people as not being worth it?
Unlimited immigration from a full-Nazi country, that situation REALLY depends on the context, my dude. If Germans in WW2 wanted to immigrate to a neutral country, I wouldn't really see that as a problem, no. Unless they were doing Nazi shit, obviously. Vet them and get rid of the Nazis, I guess? I don't mind vetting in the immigration process at all.
I also don't exactly "defend Muslims when they commit acts of violence", I think all terrorists like that are complete and utter pieces of shit. It's just that I'm mature enough to look past the fact that they share a religion with non-crazy people too, and don't blame the entire religion for their extremist acts.
As for your point on communism: I don't really care for extremist Communist discussion. As a culture we are way, way far away from Stalinism affecting us. Democracy and Capitalism are so deeply ingrained in Western society that the only thing I'm really talking about here are well-meaning discussions of Communism as an alternative economic system for the country, etc. Same with Socialism. I don't really let ideas get defined by their extremists if I can help it.
I'm pretty sure the purpose of law is to stop people from doing shitty things that harm society. That's entirely consensus based and open to some form of interpretation. Free speech HAS exceptions. Here's a list! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... exceptions
I don't think you know what you're talking about when you're speaking of matters involving the American constitution, honestly.
And no, I don't "always demand super high standards of evidence from anything supporting right-wing ideas". I demand high standards of evidence from anyone I'm engaging in an argument with unless we're actually speaking on a purely subjective level, which I generally do when I'm not making huge, sweeping statements that SHOULD require well-founded evidence that didn't just amount to "Some random alt-right blog says so". You must surely be able to see that you're hurting your own argument every single time you link someone like that, right? Just try thinking twice whenever you're linking to "OATHKEEPERS.ORG" or "RightWingNews" or the personal youtube channel of some demonstrably fucking insane guy, or Sargon of Akkad, who I have personally lost a lot of faith in after watching him engage in a long debate with somebody on politics. He came across as someone who had no idea what he was talking about, especially regarding things like correlation vs causation in statistics (which, by the way, is a huge fucking issue in just about all right-wing media I see. Feels get prioritised WAY TOO HARD over good usage of statistics. I'm not even joking when I say that I believe right-wingers tend to be more emotional and less rational than left-wingers, although that's probably just because I don't see as much retarded stuff coming from the left in general- their extremists are less vocal, maybe.)
If you want to "compare Muslim terror attacks against right-wing terror attacks, we can just use this graph I found for you.
First off, I recognise that the data is comparing any islam-inspired terrorist attack with any other terrorist attack. From what I've seen, the "other" tends to be far-right extremists, at least recently.
So! You may look at this graph and say: Holy shit, Islam is out of control, look at all these terrorist attacks! But isn't that conveniently ignoring the entire political situation around groups like ISIS? It shouldn't be a surprise that people from that region are directly inspiring others around the world to "fight for them", considering their ideology of uniting a certain type of Muslim in a worldwide war and conquest. Of course something like that resonates with people, and I bet you any money that if the destabilised region was a majority-Christian, you'd be seeing the exact same thing among Christian extremists, especially the ones that felt utterly disillusioned with society.
This opinion is supported by the graph, which clearly shows that Islamic-inspired attacks have been a clear minority until a massive event like the fuckery in the middle-east has been happening.
On top of that, Muslims are generally demonised by a significant amount of people, which would understandably cause feelings of isolation and hatred- there's an obvious cause and effect there, and that's what leftists are generally trying to solve when they preach tolerance of Islam. They understand that painting millions and millions of people with a brush that only describes a tiny minority is ridiculous, and will cause issues with integration and help validate whatever shitty victim complex these kinds of people can have.
I think there's a perfectly valid argument to be made about these not being specifically related to Islam that I have never really heard discussed by alt-righters, just completely ignored: If there are so many Muslims living in the West, such as in America, that believe in this awful violent ideology where they want to kill apostates and such, then why aren't there massive increases in crime from Muslims doing exactly that? Terrorism isn't a particularly big threat to Americans right now, not at all. People suffer from WAY bigger issues than Terrorism if they're in the US. But people are so scared of it, they've had it so hyped up against them in the media, that the government ends up making retarded decisions like the ban in an attempt to appease the people- driving them to feel even further validated in their generally-unjustified hatred of Muslims, and making Muslims go through a lot of shit as a consequence. The demonstrably-not-a-big-deal crimerates of Muslims living peacefully in the West strongly suggests that they're integrating well with Western culture, which I assume is why right-wing websites have become increasingly desperate in their pushing of fake news over the recent years- the "54 no-go zones in Sweden" myth being one I've been particularly involved in researching, and surprise, it's complete bullshit.
But yeah, tl;dr: Terrorists from Islamic extremist groups lots lately sure, but they're definitely not a massive priority and don't seem to be related to the vast majority of Muslims. They seem to be a direct result of global events rather than their religion being evil. Right-wing attacks brought up as a counterpoint not to say "Right-wing are worse!!", just that you're ignoring their statistics in your irrational fear since they're not someone you can demonise as easily. I didn't really express that point very well since I got kind of sidetracked- there's important information about lone-wolf attacks that I can't find an easy graph for you to look at, annoyingly. But hopefully I made an argument there.
For the record, I'm very happy to say I'm in favour of banning ISIS demonstrations and convening of any group like that as well. Are you someone who wants those people to gather, for the sake of free speech, or do you see those people as not being worth it?
Unlimited immigration from a full-Nazi country, that situation REALLY depends on the context, my dude. If Germans in WW2 wanted to immigrate to a neutral country, I wouldn't really see that as a problem, no. Unless they were doing Nazi shit, obviously. Vet them and get rid of the Nazis, I guess? I don't mind vetting in the immigration process at all.
I also don't exactly "defend Muslims when they commit acts of violence", I think all terrorists like that are complete and utter pieces of shit. It's just that I'm mature enough to look past the fact that they share a religion with non-crazy people too, and don't blame the entire religion for their extremist acts.
As for your point on communism: I don't really care for extremist Communist discussion. As a culture we are way, way far away from Stalinism affecting us. Democracy and Capitalism are so deeply ingrained in Western society that the only thing I'm really talking about here are well-meaning discussions of Communism as an alternative economic system for the country, etc. Same with Socialism. I don't really let ideas get defined by their extremists if I can help it.
Things like this is why it's hard to take you seriously- you randomly go full retard in the middle of your mostly-rational posts. Chill with that, yeah?B1rd wrote:
Basically, your view are just a result of indoctrination, since the Soviet Union infiltrated Western academia there has always been lots of sympathisers of communism, so even though it's an objectively worse ideology than nation socialism, people hate it much more.
I'm pretty sure the purpose of law is to stop people from doing shitty things that harm society. That's entirely consensus based and open to some form of interpretation. Free speech HAS exceptions. Here's a list! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... exceptions
I don't think you know what you're talking about when you're speaking of matters involving the American constitution, honestly.
It's all to play for in today's edition of Politics N' Shenanigans
I'm not gonna respond do your whole post at this time, but If I specifically link you evidence to prove my point, can you lay off with the "it's a conspiracy theory!" claims. The video I linked is literally a interview with a former Soviet spy, Soviet infiltration into America during the Cold War is a well documented fact. I really don't care what other videos are on the channel, I found the video through a search, and it's just a recording of an interview. Stop attacking my sources for no reason.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Things like this is why it's hard to take you seriously- you randomly go full retard in the middle of your mostly-rational posts. Chill with that, yeah?
I mean, are you even aware of McCarthyism and all of it's implications? Because if you were, I doubt you would be so quick to dismiss my argument.
Glad to see other people picking up the slack on rebuking b1rd's utter shit ever since he ejected me from his safe space
Good morning, how are you?Raspberriel wrote:
You couldn't have picked a worse time to come in.Faust wrote:
Good morning.
Your video was also MADE during the Cold War. American propaganda was on-going, another well documented fact. It's ironic that you accuse me of saying it's a conspiracy theory when you're using an interview published during the time American propaganda was being spread to demonise Communism from a source that is not well-known as your evidence that Western academia has been corrupted by Soviet influence ever since that time period. You know that sounds like a conspiracy theory itself, right?B1rd wrote:
I'm not gonna respond do your whole post at this time, but If I specifically link you evidence to prove my point, can you lay off with the "it's a conspiracy theory!" claims. The video I linked is literally a interview with a former Soviet spy, Soviet infiltration into America during the Cold War is a well documented fact. I really don't care what other videos are on the channel, I found the video through a search, and it's just a recording of an interview. Stop attacking my sources for no reason.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Things like this is why it's hard to take you seriously- you randomly go full retard in the middle of your mostly-rational posts. Chill with that, yeah?
I mean, are you even aware of McCarthyism and all of it's implications? Because if you were, I doubt you would be so quick to dismiss my argument.
Another thing for the record; I don't agree with Communism. I've just learned more about it and so don't demonise it as much as I used to back when I was less educated and more hardcore pro-Capitalism.
I'm not attacking your sources for no reason. They're VERY OFTEN highly flawed, and you seem to refuse to recognise that.
Good morning, Raspberriel!Raspberriel wrote:
Why are you asking me that?
I must say it is good to see some quality posting in Off-Topic still.
Why do you bother repeatedly directing me to this thread? I've posted in it before, and I won't be doing so again.
I just want you to know my love for you <3<3<3<3Tae wrote:
Why do you bother repeatedly directing me to this thread? I've posted in it before, and I won't be doing so again.
Not expecting you to reply
Lmao okayBlitzfrog wrote:
I just want you to know my love for you <3<3<3<3
Not expecting you to reply
Sorry to disappoint, but I love another ♡
I bet Blitz keeps a list of all the girls in FG and picks a random one every week
(
What, am I supposed to find interviews of Soviet spies during our modern day in which they're all long-dead? Actually prove my sources are wrong, because I'm sick of you dismissing them for completely arbitrary reasons, "it's not because he's communist, he's just insane!", "this news site said this, and so it completely invalidates everything else they have said", "I don't agree withthis one thing Sargon said in his hundreds of videos, therefore everything else is wrong too". This does not prove the sources wrong. You haven't even disproven any of my sources, all you've done is constantly ridicule them. And then, you try and prove your point about right-wing terror attacks by comparing literally every other type of terror attacks to Muslim terror attacks. wtf.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Your video was also MADE during the Cold War. American propaganda was on-going, another well documented fact. It's ironic that you accuse me of saying it's a conspiracy theory when you're using an interview published during the time American propaganda was being spread to demonise Communism from a source that is not well-known as your evidence that Western academia has been corrupted by Soviet influence ever since that time period. You know that sounds like a conspiracy theory itself, right?
Another thing for the record; I don't agree with Communism. I've just learned more about it and so don't demonise it as much as I used to back when I was less educated and more hardcore pro-Capitalism.
I'm not attacking your sources for no reason. They're VERY OFTEN highly flawed, and you seem to refuse to recognise that.
I know that America was pushing "propaganda", they were literally fighting an ideological battle in their home country, which if they lost America would basically fall to communism. But for some reason leftists only focus on American "propaganda", but completely disregard the fact that the Soviets were the ones to start, on American turf no less. And what "propaganda" did they need to push? All the Americans needed to do was expose the oppressive dictatorship, the millions dying, to show had bad communism was. God bless the people who actually fought back against communism during those times, a lot of whom by the way, were Christians, since atheists are, with exceptions, almost always cosy to left-wing ideology no matter how abhorrent or veritably wrong, as you have demonstrated.
"oh but it's just it's just an economic dialogue, they're not violent", I hear you say (even though I have provides sources and examples to prove otherwise), guess what, so is national socialism, a large part of the ideology is about economics, it's a form of state-controlled capitalism. And just like nazism, communism has boogeymen that are responsible for all the bad in society, in this case the "bourgeois", "porky", etc., who are fair game to kill, according to lots of communists. You separating communism into "normal" communism and "extremist" communism is just another leftist tactic to differ all criticism of an ideology to the supposed "extremist" version.
But anyway, I've already said said everything I have had to say about free speech. My original point still stands, I find it sad that you can't agree to such a simple thing as the sanctity of free-speech. About your list of exceptions, free-speech isn't just the first amendment, it's an idea. And anyway, as you will note, all of the 'exceptions' are things like "incitements to imminent violence", obscenity, libelousness etc. There is not a list of "this political ideology is covered, this one isn't", which is what you are advocating for. So... it seems I am advocating for the status quo, while you want change in favour of less free speech? If that's the case, don't tell me you value individual rights when you're arguing for less than already exist in America.
I don't know why you've turned the whole discussion about Muslim since it was only a side point for me. Obviously I completely dispute the fact that immigrants don't cause crime, that is easily disprovable just looking at crime stats from Sweden. But obviously any sources that I can find in less than a half dozen hours will be instantly dismissed by you, so I'm not gonna even try at the moment when obviously no conversation can be advanced in that area without a super large amount of proof.
I'm not sure what to make of Christians having a higher kill per attack ratio other than it's a completely irrelevant statistic.Endaris wrote:
@b1rd
so christian extremists have the highest kill per attack ratio
also while right terror might not be much of a problem in the US, it's a whole different thing in Germany and some other european states
we had cases of systematic murder after all and you can bet that the people who set fire on refugee acommodations werent communists
generally i share your opinion on the free speech thing but please fuck off with dumb statistics like that - such concepts need to hold weight without examples
How are statistics dumb? They are either correct or incorrect, and the statistics that I have shown prove that right-wing extremism is nowhere near as bad as Muslim terrorism. And you can have anecdotal examples of people burning down refugee shelters and assume it's done by right wingers, but that's hardly comparable to thousands of people killed. I can give you plenty of anecdotal examples of refugees killing people as well. You've hardly proven the claim of widespread right wing violence.
Agree or don't agree, it's up to you, you can agree on some things and not others.
You're very quick to dismiss my complaints about your sources as "arbitrary". You've been linking to complete shit what, 80 or 90% of the time? The interview was one of the better things, but I don't think it's unrealistic to assume that it's not the most relevant thing in the world if it was published in the US during the Cold War. There's obviously a conflict of interest there, they wouldn't want to publish something that wasn't vehemently anti-Russia at the time.
Again, Sargon is one of the less-shit "sources" you have, I really personally dislike him though. This is coming from someone who used to follow his stuff, I feel like he's gone off the deep end.
America WAS pushing propaganda, plain and simple. No air quotes about it. You think they were in the right because you dislike Communism, sure, but I don't think it's worth defending their content as if it's 100% accurate just because they happened to agree with you. (I'm noticing a pattern in what evidence you choose to believe, I wonder if you've noticed it too :^). )
I don't think you particularly know about Russian history, nor about Communism, honestly. I hope you understand that you're a bit of an extremist Capitalist yourself. Most people who believe in capitalism don't believe in an unregulated free market.
Free speech isn't sacred, it's something that should exist to ensure people can function in society without repression. I think it fits that purpose just fine, even if hate speech is explicitly banned. There are many exceptions to free speech within the Constitution for this very purpose. Nazism incites imminent violence. Stalinist Communism incites imminent violence. ISIS propaganda is inciting imminent violence. I'm not okay with any of these, but you've been seemingly defending them the entire time under the guise of "free speech being sacred".
I turned the issue about Muslims just because I've seen a lot of stupid arguments coming out of the right-wing about Islam and that annoys me, I guess. Your little point about crime stats from Sweden just proves mine even further, that you don't actually pay attention to decent sources and just believe the shit that you happen to agree with. I know you already mentioned I'd call you out on it, but just to let you know, you can read this article by The Telegraph, containing actual data in context. Notice the public perception of immigrants linked to crime massively difference from the reality seen in the statistics. Also, a couple of facts- there are no such thing as "no go zones" in Sweden, none at all. You're reading Fake News every single time you see them cited as evidence of anything. Secondly, Sweden reports rapes very differently to other countries. Every single time someone is raped within the same year as the reported crime, each of those incidents is counted as a seperate rape. Sweden also, iirc, makes no distinction between rape and some other forms of sexual assault.
Feel free to verify those yourself if you actually want the truth, it's not hard to find good evidence for things that are proven with statistics and facts.
Again, Sargon is one of the less-shit "sources" you have, I really personally dislike him though. This is coming from someone who used to follow his stuff, I feel like he's gone off the deep end.
America WAS pushing propaganda, plain and simple. No air quotes about it. You think they were in the right because you dislike Communism, sure, but I don't think it's worth defending their content as if it's 100% accurate just because they happened to agree with you. (I'm noticing a pattern in what evidence you choose to believe, I wonder if you've noticed it too :^). )
I don't think you particularly know about Russian history, nor about Communism, honestly. I hope you understand that you're a bit of an extremist Capitalist yourself. Most people who believe in capitalism don't believe in an unregulated free market.
Free speech isn't sacred, it's something that should exist to ensure people can function in society without repression. I think it fits that purpose just fine, even if hate speech is explicitly banned. There are many exceptions to free speech within the Constitution for this very purpose. Nazism incites imminent violence. Stalinist Communism incites imminent violence. ISIS propaganda is inciting imminent violence. I'm not okay with any of these, but you've been seemingly defending them the entire time under the guise of "free speech being sacred".
I turned the issue about Muslims just because I've seen a lot of stupid arguments coming out of the right-wing about Islam and that annoys me, I guess. Your little point about crime stats from Sweden just proves mine even further, that you don't actually pay attention to decent sources and just believe the shit that you happen to agree with. I know you already mentioned I'd call you out on it, but just to let you know, you can read this article by The Telegraph, containing actual data in context. Notice the public perception of immigrants linked to crime massively difference from the reality seen in the statistics. Also, a couple of facts- there are no such thing as "no go zones" in Sweden, none at all. You're reading Fake News every single time you see them cited as evidence of anything. Secondly, Sweden reports rapes very differently to other countries. Every single time someone is raped within the same year as the reported crime, each of those incidents is counted as a seperate rape. Sweden also, iirc, makes no distinction between rape and some other forms of sexual assault.
Feel free to verify those yourself if you actually want the truth, it's not hard to find good evidence for things that are proven with statistics and facts.
I vote for my left foot! *throws popcorn everywhere*
zzz I'd like it if this was an actual forum type forum, but it seems there's the popcorn gallery of shitposters and then two people in text wall wars.
DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
SPOILERYou're very quick to dismiss my complaints about your sources as "arbitrary". You've been linking to complete shit what, 80 or 90% of the time? The interview was one of the better things, but I don't think it's unrealistic to assume that it's not the most relevant thing in the world if it was published in the US during the Cold War. There's obviously a conflict of interest there, they wouldn't want to publish something that wasn't vehemently anti-Russia at the time.
Again, Sargon is one of the less-shit "sources" you have, I really personally dislike him though. This is coming from someone who used to follow his stuff, I feel like he's gone off the deep end.
America WAS pushing propaganda, plain and simple. No air quotes about it. You think they were in the right because you dislike Communism, sure, but I don't think it's worth defending their content as if it's 100% accurate just because they happened to agree with you. (I'm noticing a pattern in what evidence you choose to believe, I wonder if you've noticed it too :^). )
I don't think you particularly know about Russian history, nor about Communism, honestly. I hope you understand that you're a bit of an extremist Capitalist yourself. Most people who believe in capitalism don't believe in an unregulated free market.
Free speech isn't sacred, it's something that should exist to ensure people can function in society without repression. I think it fits that purpose just fine, even if hate speech is explicitly banned. There are many exceptions to free speech within the Constitution for this very purpose. Nazism incites imminent violence. Stalinist Communism incites imminent violence. ISIS propaganda is inciting imminent violence. I'm not okay with any of these, but you've been seemingly defending them the entire time under the guise of "free speech being sacred".
I turned the issue about Muslims just because I've seen a lot of stupid arguments coming out of the right-wing about Islam and that annoys me, I guess. Your little point about crime stats from Sweden just proves mine even further, that you don't actually pay attention to decent sources and just believe the shit that you happen to agree with. I know you already mentioned I'd call you out on it, but just to let you know, you can read this article by The Telegraph, containing actual data in context. Notice the public perception of immigrants linked to crime massively difference from the reality seen in the statistics. Also, a couple of facts- there are no such thing as "no go zones" in Sweden, none at all. You're reading Fake News every single time you see them cited as evidence of anything. Secondly, Sweden reports rapes very differently to other countries. Every single time someone is raped within the same year as the reported crime, each of those incidents is counted as a seperate rape. Sweden also, iirc, makes no distinction between rape and some other forms of sexual assault.
Feel free to verify those yourself if you actually want the truth, it's not hard to find good evidence for things that are proven with statistics and facts.
If you don't want to call your dismissals arbitrary, THEN STOP ARBITRARILY DISMISSING THEM WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Like seriously, stop. "Oh I care so much about statistics, my statistics are the holy grail of truth, your evidence is FAAAKE NEEEEWS, because reasons."
I'd like to note that when I'm talking about Nazism, I'm not talking about extremist Hitlerist Nazism, I'm talking about moderate Nazism :^)
Alright, if you think America was pushing propaganda, then prove it. Give me proof that America went on a campaign to intentionally make out the communist regime to be something it wasn't. I'll be waiting. And you better not use any fake news for sources btw, which will be determined by me ; )
I like how you talk about how free speech is against repression, but you advocate for the repression of certain political groups. Stop trying to make out the constitution to be what you want it to be, I've already debunked your claims on the "exceptions" of free speech. Free speech talks about the freedom to advocate political ideas, it doesn't literally mean any sound that comes out of your mouth is protected by the government. However, YOU want free speech to exclude some political beliefs, therefore you completely invalidate the idea of free speech. Call it something else, call the law that you want "safe speech" or something like that, because it sure as hell isn't free speech.
Also, I'd go on to tell you how illogical you are being saying that advocating a political ideology constitutes advocating imminent violence, and that you really need to research the meaning of imminent, but at that point I feel we'd be coming a full circle.
Now I have plenty of sources about how bad Sweden is, but of course you would just dismiss all of them as FAKE NEWS without evidence. And for the rest of the hard statistics, showing that Sweden, being the country that has accepted the most immigrants, and is now the rape capital of Europe, you will give some contrived excuse that I've heard a million times before like "they report rape differently" or "it's a more progressive country so they report rape more". And I don't completely disagree that you disregard statistics, since things like that are extremely susceptible to being influenced by the agenda of whomever commissioned them, and it's extremely hard to find out the validity of the statistics. Like, I like how your graph shows something like 1000 deaths by Muslims terrorists in the recent years, and mine is like 10,000. What is the difference? Who knows. I'd rather not getting into a squabble determined by who can't shout "fake news!" the loudest.
But actually looking at the statistics in your article, it actually shows a correlation between crime and immigration. In around 2004, when immigration started exploding, we see a steady increase and acceleration of crime rates. Why they have dropped off recently, I couldn't say, it could be many reasons, perhaps lots of crime is committed in ghettos where the people being surveyed didn't go. Perhaps, since this is pretty much the official state statistics service, they are tweaking the figures to suit their agenda. "Conspiracy theory!!". Oh wait, weren't you before going on about how America made up heaps of propaganda to suit their agenda? I suppose that was different though because that suited your ideology better while this time it doesn't.
But something that did catch my eye, is that your article directly stated that immigrants are a burden on the welfare, and that they have much higher unemployment rates than native citizens. And this is directly contrary to claims you have made before about immigrants not being a burden on a country economically. What, are you gonna call your own article fake news now? Lol.
Not sure what I stopped into but Hitler did nothing wrong
If you don't want to call your dismissals arbitrary, THEN STOP ARBITRARILY DISMISSING THEM WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Like seriously, stop. "Oh I care so much about statistics, my statistics are the holy grail of truth, your evidence is FAAAKE NEEEEWS, because reasons."Holy shit dude, you pick your fucking sources as a hill to die on? You didn't seem like it was such a big deal earlier when you were defending yourself by saying you randomly found them from Google or whatever. I didn't even argue against that, but you're being incredibly sensitive about your awful quality sources of information. You're literally asking me to prove that Cold War propaganda existed in some nonsensical attempt to prove me wrong, like it's incredibly hard to get that kind of information without having to go to retarded blogs or other shady websites. Here's a couple of pages from a design blog, showing many different designs used by either side from the Cold War:
http://www.designer-daily.com/10-amazin ... sters-2901
http://www.designer-daily.com/examples- ... ganda-2918
And here is one from another blog about propaganda in general.
https://manspropaganda.wordpress.com/the-cold-war/
Notice how even linking blogs is okay as long as they don't have some ridiculous political bias or other dubious-quality information and claims.
Big wikipedia page about the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_d ... e_Cold_War , detailing the widespread use of propaganda from both sides as they were indeed fighting an ideological war, as you pointed out earlier. Of course both governments would want to use propaganda to promote themselves and demonise the enemy.
Now, let's show a few examples from the "sources" you've been providing. RightWingNews.com:
"I guess the Stasi are alive and well these days. If you think this won’t happen in the US, think again. The left is already working towards it. There is no free speech outside of the US anymore and if Obama and his cronies get their way, it won’t exist here much longer."
Sounds incredibly balanced and competent as a journalistic piece. This is from the exact page you linked me to to prove one of your points.
The next source you posted, markhumphrys.com, saw no issue in publishing the baseless claim:
"With the rise of endless Islamic terrorism in the West, there has been a psychological need to portray a similar "Christian terrorism" in cinema and TV."
And seems generally unafraid to mix in random emotive shit while pushing what seems to be legit data:
"One of the worst examples of the left blaming the wrong people was when a Jew-hating neo-Nazi carried out a terrorist attack on Sikhs in Wisconsin in 2012.
Leftists blamed anyone and everyone on the right, including more or less the entire GOP. They even blamed Jew-loving, anti-jihad, Israel supporters, who a neo-Nazi skinhead is hardly likely to be reading!"
I can't exactly respect "factual reports" that go out of their way to emotionally appeal to the reader, sorry.
Your next source is some Sargon of Akkad video that I don't care about. It's whatever, I don't feel like watching it through to see if it's BS or not. Let's just assume he has legit information there at least.
The next source: "OathKeepers.org".
"Global Warming is About Destroying Capitalism?"
"Friendly Reminder: Obama Selected The List Of Muslim Countries in Trump’s Executive Order"
"n cities across America and as far away as Madrid, women were out in force to protest someone they clearly know nothing about. What was it about his inaugural speech that set them in motion? What caused these women to identify themselves as mere vaginas? Who is behind the so-called women’s rights operation? Why were they protesting Donald Trump?"
"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association" <-- lol
And finally your last source is David Vose's youtube channel, which looks like this.
He posted an interview that was filmed and published during the Cold War, when America wanted the USSR to look bad. I'd be a lot less wary of it if it was filmed after that was over, y'know.
So! Out of 5 sources you've posted, 2 have been completely bullshit (OathKeepers and RightWingNews), two have been very questionable (markhumphrys.com and the interview with the Russian), and one has been something I haven't bothered to check out properly. Seems to fit my evaluation of at least 80% of the stuff you've been using as evidence being crap.
I just don't get why you want me to specifically criticise this, as if they're utterly baseless claims until I spell out all the evidence for you. Are you that fucking blind to right-wing propaganda and emotive BS that you don't even see how ridiculous the sites that you link me to are? You got so defensive that it sounds like you really wanted them to be true.
Weren't you trying to argue that Communism calls for violence, citing its open call to violently seize property and reallocate it to the state? That sounds "imminent" to me, yes.B1rd wrote:
Also, I'd go on to tell you how illogical you are being saying that advocating a political ideology constitutes advocating imminent violence, and that you really need to research the meaning of imminent
I was talking about the Cold War, as you should have already been able to understand, when mentioning ANYTHING relating to American propaganda. I think Trump's White House has been shitting out a lot of it since he came into power, but it's not entirely permeated in media and society like any wartime propaganda was.
What an earth are you talking about with your line about the steady increase of immigration since 2004 directly causing crime to rise? If the charts of immigration to Sweden and crime don't match in their trend, then that proves that there's not a very strong connection, my dude. I also don't understand your point about disregarding statistics. I don't disregard statistics if they come from a good source. Is yours correctly showing information relating to *terrorist* attacks, attacks that explicitly link to terrorist organisations instead of lone-wolf attacks? Is your data specifically for Western Europe?
And it sounds like people may have already told you the reasons why Sweden is "the rape capital of Europe". I don't understand why you ignore them so easily, they explain the situation entirely. Nice buzzword title for the country, though.
Of course immigrants are a burden on the welfare system to some extent. It doesn't mean their total output is less than their total input, it just means that money has to go to more people via the welfare system than if they weren't there. You're purposely ignoring the definitions of words to suit your argument here.
I'd like to note that when I'm talking about Nazism, I'm not talking about extremist Hitlerist Nazism, I'm talking about moderate Nazism :^)Hitler invented Nazism. No comparison.
Nazism wasn't "invented" by one man but Hitler is one of them so it still makes vipper's point true
stopN0thingSpecial wrote:
Not sure what I stopped into but Hitler did nothing wrong
People believe this stuffErlkonig wrote:
What the hell, these news has to be satire.
Now you know what's wrong with people like b1rd
Mahogany if you're actually just gay for B1rd, admit it. I see that fucking username in your posts all the time
This is how I feel about the liberal mediaMahogany wrote:
People believe this stuffErlkonig wrote:
What the hell, these news has to be satire.
Now you know what's wrong with people like b1rd
Goddamn, how many memes are in the "Walmart Mystery Solved" thumbnail?
I'm gay for Masala though, b1rd is ewFoxtrot wrote:
Mahogany if you're actually just gay for B1rd, admit it. I see that fucking username in your posts all the time
Obama, Hillary, Soros, that photoshopped Iran missile test in the background, the upside-down Texas flag, whatever that toddler's name isjohnmedina999 wrote:
Goddamn, how many memes are in the "Walmart Mystery Solved" thumbnail?
damn, this belongs in the MoMA for being such a masterpiece
You bring him up more than you bring up anything else. He's on your mind, day and night,Mahogany wrote:
I'm gay for Masala though, b1rd is ewFoxtrot wrote:
Mahogany if you're actually just gay for B1rd, admit it. I see that fucking username in your posts all the time
mmmh.....
oooohhhh~
SPOILER
''B1rd..'', Mahogany whispered, ''can you promise me that we will be together forever?''
''Yes, my sweet little boy,'' B1rd replied with a stern voice. ''We will be together, so i can tend to you every night.''
B1rd's voice started to quiver a bit, as the burning passion within him grew and grew...
Before he could say anything more, Mahogany wrapped his frail arms around him and started to nibble on his earlobe.
''mhhhhh~~~''
''W-what are you doing, Mahogany?'', B1rd cried out while blushing. Even after everything that happened between the two, B1rd still got flustered easily.
''Oh you know what i'm doing, cutie'', Mahogany responded playfully, as his hands made their way downwards towards B1rd's crotch.
''Oh my, would you look at that,'' Mahogany gasped in surprise. ''You're already THAT hard''
''mmmh, i can't help it, the things you say... the things you do to me always drive me crazy'', B1rd uttered under his breath
''You know it, bitch! Now lie down and take it!'', Mahogany commanded.
B1rd followed Mahogany's orders quickly and lied down at the usual spot, an old carpet on the floor.
Next to him, a sizeable stack of papers, which he printed out in advance as he would need to use them all.
Mahogany lowered his body onto B1rd's...
And so the two began a not so formal debate, as they always did.
Mahogany, sitting on B1rds abdomen while yelling profanities.
B1rd, throwing DinA4 papers at Mahogany, on which he printed various incredibly one-sided and biased ''news'' reports that he found on the internet.
They spent their evening in bliss, Mahogany cursing without even drawing breath, and B1rd throwing shitty sources around faster than anyone could read or care. Eventually they both got tired, went to bed, and fell asleep soundly.
The end.
''Yes, my sweet little boy,'' B1rd replied with a stern voice. ''We will be together, so i can tend to you every night.''
B1rd's voice started to quiver a bit, as the burning passion within him grew and grew...
Before he could say anything more, Mahogany wrapped his frail arms around him and started to nibble on his earlobe.
''mhhhhh~~~''
''W-what are you doing, Mahogany?'', B1rd cried out while blushing. Even after everything that happened between the two, B1rd still got flustered easily.
''Oh you know what i'm doing, cutie'', Mahogany responded playfully, as his hands made their way downwards towards B1rd's crotch.
''Oh my, would you look at that,'' Mahogany gasped in surprise. ''You're already THAT hard''
''mmmh, i can't help it, the things you say... the things you do to me always drive me crazy'', B1rd uttered under his breath
''You know it, bitch! Now lie down and take it!'', Mahogany commanded.
B1rd followed Mahogany's orders quickly and lied down at the usual spot, an old carpet on the floor.
Next to him, a sizeable stack of papers, which he printed out in advance as he would need to use them all.
Mahogany lowered his body onto B1rd's...
And so the two began a not so formal debate, as they always did.
Mahogany, sitting on B1rds abdomen while yelling profanities.
B1rd, throwing DinA4 papers at Mahogany, on which he printed various incredibly one-sided and biased ''news'' reports that he found on the internet.
They spent their evening in bliss, Mahogany cursing without even drawing breath, and B1rd throwing shitty sources around faster than anyone could read or care. Eventually they both got tired, went to bed, and fell asleep soundly.
The end.
Jesus christ I didn't need this erotic roleplay in my life
okay i'll be honest that was a pretty good meme
i take it back
i take it back
I don't think I've seen you talk about Masala even once prior todayMahogany wrote:
I'm gay for Masala though, b1rd is ewFoxtrot wrote:
Mahogany if you're actually just gay for B1rd, admit it. I see that fucking username in your posts all the time
MahoganiesRailey2 wrote:
B1rd followed Mahoganies orders
Holy shit Railey
This is top-level posting right here
I love it.
This is top-level posting right here
I love it.
Its relatively recent ever since coldtooth was a jerk to meKisses wrote:
I don't think I've seen you talk about Masala even once prior today
You just went full Allmynameistaken.Railey2 wrote:
You bring him up more than you bring up anything else. He's on your mind, day and night,
mmmh.....
oooohhhh~SPOILER''B1rd..'', Mahogany whispered, ''can you promise me that we will be together forever?''
''Yes, my sweet little boy,'' B1rd replied with a stern voice. ''We will be together, so i can tend to you every night.''
B1rd's voice started to quiver a bit, as the burning passion within him grew and grew...
Before he could say anything more, Mahogany wrapped his frail arms around him and started to nibble on his earlobe.
''mhhhhh~~~''
''W-what are you doing, Mahogany?'', B1rd cried out while blushing. Even after everything that happened between the two, B1rd still got flustered easily.
''Oh you know what i'm doing, cutie'', Mahogany responded playfully, as his hands made their way downwards towards B1rd's crotch.
''Oh my, would you look at that,'' Mahogany gasped in surprise. ''You're already THAT hard''
''mmmh, i can't help it, the things you say... the things you do to me always drive me crazy'', B1rd uttered under his breath
''You know it, bitch! Now lie down and take it!'', Mahogany commanded.
B1rd followed Mahoganies orders quickly and lied down at the usual spot, an old carpet on the floor.
Next to him, a sizeable stack of papers, which he printed out in advance as he would need to use them all.
Mahogany lowered his body onto B1rd's...
And so the two began a not so formal debate, as they always did.
Mahogany, sitting on B1rds abdomen while yelling profanities.
B1rd, throwing DinA4 papers at Mahogany, on which he printed various incredibly one-sided and biased ''news'' reports that he found on the internet.
They spent their evening in bliss, Mahogany cursing without even drawing breath, and B1rd throwing shitty sources around faster than anyone could read or care. Eventually they both got tired, went to bed, and fell asleep soundly.
The end.
Never go full Allmynameistaken.
the thing is that b1rd tries to derail every discussion to muslim terrorism
If we're talking about terrorism, of course Muslim terrorism is going to come up. I was talking about free speech and anything about Islam was a side point. Vipper was the one to derail the discussion into one about Muslims by replying to a couple of my sentences with a full wall post. If this is a sensitive topic for you, I don't really care.
picky picky_old
yet you care enough to write novels of text on this forumB1rd wrote:
If we're talking about terrorism, of course Muslim terrorism is going to come up. I was talking about free speech and anything about Islam was a side point. Vipper was the one to derail the discussion into one about Muslims by replying to a couple of my sentences with a full wall post. If this is a sensitive topic for you, I don't really care.
in this thread
:thinking:
he pestered me firstMahogany wrote:
Its relatively recent ever since coldtooth was a jerk to meKisses wrote:
I don't think I've seen you talk about Masala even once prior today
I don't particularly care if people don't like the fact that sometimes I sometimes use this forum to talk about world issues and politics, rather than just shitpost all day. Maybe 6-7 paragraphs is a lot to some people, but compared to something like, say, a book, it's really not much.picky picky wrote:
yet you care enough to write novels of text on this forum
in this thread
:thinking:
Wait i thought the two were the same, why didn't anybody tell meB1rd wrote:
I don't particularly care if people don't like the fact that I sometimes use this forum to talk about world issues and politics, rather than just shitpost all day.
From my now purely spectatorial viewpoint, I'm more willing to see these debates than Blitzfrog and his ilk spewing a bunch of nonsense.
I should bring that "fun fact" thread while I'm at it, too.
I should bring that "fun fact" thread while I'm at it, too.
They're certainly more entertaining than deez nuts on your chin.
You were gay to me before I even discovered I was gay.ColdTooth wrote:
he pestered me first
Dawnsday wrote:
They're certainlymoreless entertaining than deez nuts on your chin.
If you can give me a tl;dr of the debates that are longer than 5 paragraphs a post that'd be greatRaspberriel wrote:
From my now purely spectatorial viewpoint, I'm more willing to see these debates than Blitzfrog and his ilk spewing a bunch of nonsense.
I should bring that "fun fact" thread while I'm at it, too.
the plague of gay spreads y'knowMahogany wrote:
You were gay to me before I even discovered I was gay.ColdTooth wrote:
he pestered me first
Without our asinine political debates, this forum would be dead and you all know it
Plague of the nuts on your chin do tooColdTooth wrote:
the plague of gay spreads y'knowMahogany wrote:
You were gay to me before I even discovered I was gay.
Call me DaddyDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Without our asinine political debates, this forum would be dead and you all know it
Summary:Kisses wrote:
If you can give me a tl;dr of the debates that are longer than 5 paragraphs a post that'd be great
Me: Free speech is an important right that needs to be maintained
Vipper: Free speech should not include certain minority groups that I don't like, like Nazis
Me: Free speech needs to include everyone, including unpopular minority groups, otherwise we don't have true free speech
Vipper: Muslim immigrants from third world countries does not increase crime and are an economic boon to their destination country
Me: Muslim immigrants are a drain on their destination country's resources, increase crime, and have a religion that is incompatible with Western values
^ Fair summary there, can confirm
I also probably made a point in there about Islam not being incompatible with Western values because such incompatibility would be reflected in crime statistics, which they are not
I also probably made a point in there about Islam not being incompatible with Western values because such incompatibility would be reflected in crime statistics, which they are not
It's written by b1rd after allDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
^Fairfeather summary there, can confirm
Please stop this.Blitzfrog wrote:
It's written by b1rd after allDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
^Fairfeather summary there, can confirm
fuck's sakeBlitzfrog wrote:
It's written by b1rd after allDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
^Fairfeather summary there, can confirm
I don't necessarily agree that religion is a strong factor in crime rates. I think crime rates are more dependent on race and culture than religion, but that's a whole different argument. I say that Islam is incompatible with Western values because it is, women as inferior to men, honour killings, child marriages, death to apostates, all these things are supporter by Islam fundamentalism, and as a result people who come from Islam fundamentalist countries. Surveys have indicated that lots of Muslims support these things, even in "moderate" countries. I believe that Muslims won't outright practice most of these things when they are a minority in a Western country, but you can bet your arse off if they become the large majority, then suddenly we'll have death to apostates and stonings of gays.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
^ Fair summary there, can confirm
I also probably made a point in there about Islam not being incompatible with Western values because such incompatibility would be reflected in crime statistics, which they are not
And I don't think many right wingers actually want to completely halt immigration of Muslims, they just want to largely reduce immigration to a trickle based and only accept Muslims for work reasons. That way the Muslims that come can integrate. When you have lots of Muslim immigrants however, they will just seclude themselves in their own Muslims ghettos and not integrate. We can easily see this in places like UK, where there have been lots of Muslim marches advocating for "sharia law".
By the way, you still haven't given any evidence concerning disproving the existence of "no-go zones". Also, I'm still working on a reply to your other post, I'll finish it when I can be bothered.
Honestly, I think the difference in crimerates between races etc can be adequately explained by both cultural attitudes and socioeconomic factors being kind of rigged against them. That'd be a big discussion and I'd rather not get into it, though.B1rd wrote:
I don't necessarily agree that religion is a strong factor in crime rates. I think crime rates are more dependent on race and culture than religion, but that's a whole different argument. I say that Islam is incompatible with Western values because it is, women as inferior to men, honour killings, child marriages, death to apostates, all these things are supporter by Islam fundamentalism, and as a result people who come from Islam fundamentalist countries. Surveys have indicated that lots of Muslims support these things, even in "moderate" countries. I believe that Muslims won't outright practice most of these things when they are a minority in a Western country, but you can bet your arse off if they become the large majority, then suddenly we'll have death to apostates and stonings of gays.
And I don't think many right wingers actually want to completely halt immigration of Muslims, they just want to largely reduce immigration to a trickle based and only accept Muslims for work reasons. That way the Muslims that come can integrate. When you have lots of Muslim immigrants however, they will just seclude themselves in their own Muslims ghettos and not integrate. We can easily see this in places like UK, where there have been lots of Muslim marches advocating for "sharia law".
By the way, you still haven't given any evidence concerning disproving the existence of "no-go zones". Also, I'm still working on a reply to your other post, I'll finish it when I can be bothered.
I understand you've seen the Pew polls about Muslims having extreme beliefs (those get posted around everywhere as evidence that Muslims are insane and incompatible with the West) and I agree that I don't like Islam for a few reasons. That said, though, the fact that millions of Muslims can be apparently believing this stuff but not acting on it suggests that it's not actually a big deal. Actions speak louder than words, after all. I'm sure things could change if Islam ever became a majority, but that isn't going to happen in the West unless the ideology rapidly spreads to people who don't have a history of Islam already, which it presumably isn't (idk the statistics on people converting to Islam in the West though).
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.as ... el=6630452
^^^ good source
http://www.thelocal.se/20160923/embassy ... en-hungary
The report that was put out a while back showed the over-50 areas of Sweden defined as "vulnerable areas". These exist in every single country, by the way. Imagine Detroit or Flint or some other awful American city- it's like that, but a LOT less bad in Sweden. The way police respond to this is to 1: increase presence, i.e. sending more police in there, as well as trying to build positive relations with the community. There isn't a single place in Sweden where the big bad scary Muslims are so out of control that police don't dare do their jobs.
So lets so, so far you have completely failed to factualy debunk any of my source. Your ridicule of them has been completely irrational. Reminder that:DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
SPOILERIf you don't want to call your dismissals arbitrary, THEN STOP ARBITRARILY DISMISSING THEM WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Like seriously, stop. "Oh I care so much about statistics, my statistics are the holy grail of truth, your evidence is FAAAKE NEEEEWS, because reasons."Holy shit dude, you pick your fucking sources as a hill to die on? You didn't seem like it was such a big deal earlier when you were defending yourself by saying you randomly found them from Google or whatever. I didn't even argue against that, but you're being incredibly sensitive about your awful quality sources of information. You're literally asking me to prove that Cold War propaganda existed in some nonsensical attempt to prove me wrong, like it's incredibly hard to get that kind of information without having to go to retarded blogs or other shady websites. Here's a couple of pages from a design blog, showing many different designs used by either side from the Cold War:
http://www.designer-daily.com/10-amazin ... sters-2901
http://www.designer-daily.com/examples- ... ganda-2918
And here is one from another blog about propaganda in general.
https://manspropaganda.wordpress.com/the-cold-war/
Notice how even linking blogs is okay as long as they don't have some ridiculous political bias or other dubious-quality information and claims.
Big wikipedia page about the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_d ... e_Cold_War , detailing the widespread use of propaganda from both sides as they were indeed fighting an ideological war, as you pointed out earlier. Of course both governments would want to use propaganda to promote themselves and demonise the enemy.
Now, let's show a few examples from the "sources" you've been providing. RightWingNews.com:
"I guess the Stasi are alive and well these days. If you think this won’t happen in the US, think again. The left is already working towards it. There is no free speech outside of the US anymore and if Obama and his cronies get their way, it won’t exist here much longer."
Sounds incredibly balanced and competent as a journalistic piece. This is from the exact page you linked me to to prove one of your points.
The next source you posted, markhumphrys.com, saw no issue in publishing the baseless claim:
"With the rise of endless Islamic terrorism in the West, there has been a psychological need to portray a similar "Christian terrorism" in cinema and TV."
And seems generally unafraid to mix in random emotive shit while pushing what seems to be legit data:
"One of the worst examples of the left blaming the wrong people was when a Jew-hating neo-Nazi carried out a terrorist attack on Sikhs in Wisconsin in 2012.
Leftists blamed anyone and everyone on the right, including more or less the entire GOP. They even blamed Jew-loving, anti-jihad, Israel supporters, who a neo-Nazi skinhead is hardly likely to be reading!"
I can't exactly respect "factual reports" that go out of their way to emotionally appeal to the reader, sorry.
Your next source is some Sargon of Akkad video that I don't care about. It's whatever, I don't feel like watching it through to see if it's BS or not. Let's just assume he has legit information there at least.
The next source: "OathKeepers.org".
"Global Warming is About Destroying Capitalism?"
"Friendly Reminder: Obama Selected The List Of Muslim Countries in Trump’s Executive Order"
"n cities across America and as far away as Madrid, women were out in force to protest someone they clearly know nothing about. What was it about his inaugural speech that set them in motion? What caused these women to identify themselves as mere vaginas? Who is behind the so-called women’s rights operation? Why were they protesting Donald Trump?"
"Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association" <-- lol
And finally your last source is David Vose's youtube channel, which looks like this.
He posted an interview that was filmed and published during the Cold War, when America wanted the USSR to look bad. I'd be a lot less wary of it if it was filmed after that was over, y'know.
So! Out of 5 sources you've posted, 2 have been completely bullshit (OathKeepers and RightWingNews), two have been very questionable (markhumphrys.com and the interview with the Russian), and one has been something I haven't bothered to check out properly. Seems to fit my evaluation of at least 80% of the stuff you've been using as evidence being crap.
I just don't get why you want me to specifically criticise this, as if they're utterly baseless claims until I spell out all the evidence for you. Are you that fucking blind to right-wing propaganda and emotive BS that you don't even see how ridiculous the sites that you link me to are? You got so defensive that it sounds like you really wanted them to be true.Weren't you trying to argue that Communism calls for violence, citing its open call to violently seize property and reallocate it to the state? That sounds "imminent" to me, yes.B1rd wrote:
Also, I'd go on to tell you how illogical you are being saying that advocating a political ideology constitutes advocating imminent violence, and that you really need to research the meaning of imminent
I was talking about the Cold War, as you should have already been able to understand, when mentioning ANYTHING relating to American propaganda. I think Trump's White House has been shitting out a lot of it since he came into power, but it's not entirely permeated in media and society like any wartime propaganda was.
What an earth are you talking about with your line about the steady increase of immigration since 2004 directly causing crime to rise? If the charts of immigration to Sweden and crime don't match in their trend, then that proves that there's not a very strong connection, my dude. I also don't understand your point about disregarding statistics. I don't disregard statistics if they come from a good source. Is yours correctly showing information relating to *terrorist* attacks, attacks that explicitly link to terrorist organisations instead of lone-wolf attacks? Is your data specifically for Western Europe?
And it sounds like people may have already told you the reasons why Sweden is "the rape capital of Europe". I don't understand why you ignore them so easily, they explain the situation entirely. Nice buzzword title for the country, though.
Of course immigrants are a burden on the welfare system to some extent. It doesn't mean their total output is less than their total input, it just means that money has to go to more people via the welfare system than if they weren't there. You're purposely ignoring the definitions of words to suit your argument here.I'd like to note that when I'm talking about Nazism, I'm not talking about extremist Hitlerist Nazism, I'm talking about moderate Nazism :^)Hitler invented Nazism. No comparison.
-claiming they're biased does not factually debunk them
-claiming they're bullshit does not factually debunk them
-claiming they're "overly emotive" does not factually debunk them
-showing examples of other statements they have made that you don't agree with does not debunk them
So overall, you just have this "it's a conspiracy theory!" mindset, which shows you can't rationally analyse things you think are just "too extreme". Conspiracy theories are things that don't have good evidence, many "conspiracy theories" do have good evidence to go along with them even if they do have extreme implications that might disturb the roses and sunshine view of the world that some people like to forcibly maintain. Now, lets go over these so-called 'ridiculous statements" from my news sources.
"I guess the Stasi are alive and well these days. If you think this won’t happen in the US, think again. The left is already working towards it. There is no free speech outside of the US anymore and if Obama and his cronies get their way, it won’t exist here much longer."I don't know who the Stasi are, but the second part, I completely agree. There is no free speech outside the US, as I have demonstrated with previous sources, and the left is working to get rid of free speech, as you yourself have demonstrated.
"With the rise of endless Islamic terrorism in the West, there has been a psychological need to portray a similar "Christian terrorism" in cinema and TV."Completely agree. We've even seen in this thread how you and Endaris have tried to demonise or blow out of proportion right-wing and Christian terror attacks and promote the fallacy that they're "just as bad". This is something I see all the time from the left.
"One of the worst examples of the left blaming the wrong people was when a Jew-hating neo-Nazi carried out a terrorist attack on Sikhs in Wisconsin in 2012.Leftists blamed anyone and everyone on the right, including more or less the entire GOP. They even blamed Jew-loving, anti-jihad, Israel supporters, who a neo-Nazi skinhead is hardly likely to be reading!"I don't know the event in question, but it does seem like a good point. The left does like to make out the entire right to be the exact same, even when they wildly differ, such as in this example of neo-cons loving Israel and neo-nazis hating Jews.
"Global Warming is About Destroying Capitalism?"Agree that some people like to create a false dichotomy of "capitalism vs the environment", and use it as justification to push regressive regulations.
"Friendly Reminder: Obama Selected The List Of Muslim Countries in Trump’s Executive Order"Factually correct.
"n cities across America and as far away as Madrid, women were out in force to protest someone they clearly know nothing about. What was it about his inaugural speech that set them in motion? What caused these women to identify themselves as mere vaginas? Who is behind the so-called women’s rights operation? Why were they protesting Donald Trump?"Very good point, in that all these women's protests are pretty much complete nonsense in that they aren't even protesting anything specific, except that they hate Trump because of his personality. Like, protesting Trump in another country is just complete retardation IMO.
Like most political ideologies, Hitler didn't just make it up as he went along, he was heavily influenced by previous intellectuals and political figures. Which might be comparable to, I don't know, Lenin being influenced by Marx?DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Hitler invented Nazism. No comparison.
Shows how much you know about Nazism. Like, I don't claim to be an expert either, but at least I maintain a someone nuanced reasoning and don't demonise and claim something should be banned even though I know very little about it. You claim right wing people use emotive arguments, but it seems that that's what you resort to regarding anything related to Nazism.
Anyway, I'll just posts that for the time being and get on to the rest of your points bit later.
I feel like you have a terrible habit of accepting "journalism", no matter how shoddy it is, as being completely fine so long as you overall agree with it. The above post where you take the examples I specifically pointed out for their ridiculousness, obvious bias, and attempts to spin facts to fit their agenda and agree with just about all of them shows me this. You think they're legitimately well-written pieces of journalism, which pretty much sums up why I struggle to have an evidence-based argument with you. You can just find any retarded shit that you agree with and are willing to defend it unquestionably.
As for the Nazism thing, he was the *face* of Nazism, its leader during both its rise and fall. It's like saying "I'm not talking about that crazy Marxist Communism, I mean the moderate Stalinist Communism!"- people generally go to the root of the ideology for these kinds of discussions. The entire talking point is just semantics though, not sure why you're going full retard again with the whole
As for the Nazism thing, he was the *face* of Nazism, its leader during both its rise and fall. It's like saying "I'm not talking about that crazy Marxist Communism, I mean the moderate Stalinist Communism!"- people generally go to the root of the ideology for these kinds of discussions. The entire talking point is just semantics though, not sure why you're going full retard again with the whole
extrapolation.B1rd wrote:
You claim right wing people use emotive arguments, but it seems that that's what you resort to regarding anything related to Nazism.