t/535729Foxtrot wrote:
I bet Blitz keeps a list of all the girls in FG and picks a random one every week
Also Tae is not grill
(At least not on my list
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,720
Also Tae is not grill
(At least not on my list
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.
I still think China should rule Earth.
Because you haven't even attacked my sources, you've just ridiculed them. If you when to have a "evidence-based argument" THEN DISPROVE MY SOURCES WITH EVIDENCE NOT CONJECTURE
If you were to just say something reasonable like "can you prove the integrity of your sources?" then maybe I could go on to find additional evidence. But no, you just say "wahh bias", that is, IN YOUR OPINION, and then completely dismiss everything. I go out of my way to supply sources to statements that aren't even particularly groundbreaking or controversial, and instead of backing up my points you use it as a means to attack my point.
Instead, you're the one who refuses to advance the conversation by even attempting to factually debunk anything, you completely ignore any evidence I provide to back up my sources, and you continue spouting the same nonsense which is nothing but arbitrary reasoning. Like attacking the Youtube channel a video was posted on rather than the contents itself. You're really testing my patience.
If you were to just say something reasonable like "can you prove the integrity of your sources?" then maybe I could go on to find additional evidence. But no, you just say "wahh bias", that is, IN YOUR OPINION, and then completely dismiss everything. I go out of my way to supply sources to statements that aren't even particularly groundbreaking or controversial, and instead of backing up my points you use it as a means to attack my point.
Instead, you're the one who refuses to advance the conversation by even attempting to factually debunk anything, you completely ignore any evidence I provide to back up my sources, and you continue spouting the same nonsense which is nothing but arbitrary reasoning. Like attacking the Youtube channel a video was posted on rather than the contents itself. You're really testing my patience.
Hitler isn't even the root of Nazism, he's just the face of it, completely comparable to the way Stalin and Lenin are the face of Communism but not the root of it.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
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
What? I don't even know what you're talking about. Here I am, debunking your false claims about Nazism and how Nazism is not comparable to communism, and pointing out your irrationality in discrimination between the two ideologies, and yet you just pull out the "retard" card again.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
extrapolation.
You haven't debunked anything though
tfw no Kosovian Union
Can we just let Ireland rule the world? The Irish Empire has a nice ring to it, I think.
they kinda do alreadyMahogany wrote:
Can we just let Ireland rule the world? The Irish Empire has a nice ring to it, I think.
British Empire sounds better and unlike the Irish Empire it actually existed
Irish beer is really nice, I'll say this much.
No to world domination, though.
No to world domination, though.
Irish can't even take over their own country, let alone have an empire.
Irish whiskey is kinda meh, it's too sweet and doesn't have much flavour. At least it's better than American whiskey, though.
Irish whiskey is kinda meh, it's too sweet and doesn't have much flavour. At least it's better than American whiskey, though.
Don't let these people distract you from the fact that Greater Albania is 100% on the rise and will encompass the entire Balkans in the next ten years, and the world in the next 25
and if u talking air max it's got to be 95
on a side note
someone page railey and tell him this is how zzz it is to spectate one of these pointless peen measuring contests
on a side note
someone page railey and tell him this is how zzz it is to spectate one of these pointless peen measuring contests
I've been calling them out as being incredibly shoddy "journalism", which they are. Debunking every individual thing that they shit out would take more time than I'm willing to invest, but you should be wary enough to do that yourself if you're looking to believe anything that they publish.B1rd wrote:
Instead, you're the one who refuses to advance the conversation by even attempting to factually debunk anything, you completely ignore any evidence I provide to back up my sources, and you continue spouting the same nonsense which is nothing but arbitrary reasoning. Like attacking the Youtube channel a video was posted on rather than the contents itself. You're really testing my patience.
Anything right wing is shoddy journalism to you, obviously because it's right-wing and therefore incorrect by default. You even attack Breitbart, which is one of the most popular and reputable news sites.
Also I thought I already posted this but maybe my thoughts are getting muddled this late at night. The guy in the interview is Yuri Bezmenov, a confirmed communist defector, he has a biography on wikipedia and everything, you can look him up. All these interviews proves a dedicated subversion and propaganda program by the communists, which we are still seeing the effects of today. It why, despite the horrors of communism for outstripping that of the Nazis, there is still sympathy for communism, in the public, media, academia, whilst any right wing ideology is regarded EVIL.
So unless you want to claim that this guy is outright lying, you should listen to what he's saying, and then reflect how cultural trends - I feel like saying indoctrination - have rubbed off on you to give you such a biased view.
Also I thought I already posted this but maybe my thoughts are getting muddled this late at night. The guy in the interview is Yuri Bezmenov, a confirmed communist defector, he has a biography on wikipedia and everything, you can look him up. All these interviews proves a dedicated subversion and propaganda program by the communists, which we are still seeing the effects of today. It why, despite the horrors of communism for outstripping that of the Nazis, there is still sympathy for communism, in the public, media, academia, whilst any right wing ideology is regarded EVIL.
So unless you want to claim that this guy is outright lying, you should listen to what he's saying, and then reflect how cultural trends - I feel like saying indoctrination - have rubbed off on you to give you such a biased view.
lmfao breitbart is one of the least reputable news sites in the world.B1rd wrote:
Anything right wing is shoddy journalism to you, obviously because it's right-wing and therefore incorrect by default. You even attack Breitbart, which is one of the most popular and reputable news sites.
Apologies we like to use democracy rather than being violent hicks. Some of the lads in the north don't want to be a part of Ireland, and that's totally fine. Whatever makes people the happiest.B1rd wrote:
Irish can't even take over their own country, let alone have an empire.
You're doing this so wrong. Learn from Faust pls.B1rd wrote:
Irish whiskey is kinda meh
Breitbart is absolutely not a reputable source, it's an online tabloid.
If those are seriously your examples of good right-wing journalism then I feel incredibly bad for an entire half of the political spectrum.
If those are seriously your examples of good right-wing journalism then I feel incredibly bad for an entire half of the political spectrum.
>Breitbart has an article on no-go zones, sources by a Swedish Police officer
ahhh shitty journalism emotional arguments right wing propganda qqqqqqqqqq
>Your news site has an article on how there's not no-go zones, sourced by Swedish police officers
OMG LOOK AT THIS SPARKLING GEM OF JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY (IT AFFIRMS MY PREVIOUSLY-HELD CONVICTIONS)
Have you ever comprehended that being a partisan news site doesn't automatically invalidate all of their articles, evidence, and source articles?
ahhh shitty journalism emotional arguments right wing propganda qqqqqqqqqq
>Your news site has an article on how there's not no-go zones, sourced by Swedish police officers
OMG LOOK AT THIS SPARKLING GEM OF JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY (IT AFFIRMS MY PREVIOUSLY-HELD CONVICTIONS)
Have you ever comprehended that being a partisan news site doesn't automatically invalidate all of their articles, evidence, and source articles?
Of course not. They just happen to be shitty journalists.
Kisses wrote:
British Empire sounds better and unlike the Irish Empire it actually existed
How many potatos does it take to kill an irishman?
NONE
lmao
Fun history lesson: Ireland actually had enough alternative crops and livestock to feed all its people without the need for potatoes.
However, all of those foods were being exported to England to pay rents and such.
Had the Brits just gone "Yo, debts are on pause until your shit gets sorted out" over a million lives could've been saved.
However, all of those foods were being exported to England to pay rents and such.
Had the Brits just gone "Yo, debts are on pause until your shit gets sorted out" over a million lives could've been saved.
Mahogany wrote:
Fun history lesson: Ireland actually had enough alternative crops and livestock to feed all its people without the need for potatoes.
However, all of those foods were being exported to England to pay rents and such.
Had the Brits just gone "Yo, debts are on pause until your shit gets sorted out" over a million lives could've been saved.
B1rd and tooth are mortal enemies
Like irish and the english
Or catholics and protestants
Or irish and other irish
But we're cool with the English
B1rd wrote:
>Breitbart has an article on no-go zones, sources by a Swedish Police officer
ahhh shitty journalism emotional arguments right wing propganda qqqqqqqqqq
>Your news site has an article on how there's not no-go zones, sourced by Swedish police officers
OMG LOOK AT THIS SPARKLING GEM OF JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY (IT AFFIRMS MY PREVIOUSLY-HELD CONVICTIONS)
Have you ever comprehended that being a partisan news site doesn't automatically invalidate all of their articles, evidence, and source articles?
I mean, hearing that the source is a reputable one from the Swedes I know inside the country and talk to on a daily basis, as well as checking out their website and seeing both a variety of topics and political "agendas" and well-sourced writing... yeah, I'd say it's a good source compared to whatever you can find on Breitbart. Prove me wrong if you want to. The article you're referring to has this wonderful quote from the retired officer:
"We have a number of no-go-zones in Sweden and they are expanding… police can go to these places"
Hey, look. Not a "no-go zone". Police can and do go to them. Wow.
Also, talking to people from Malmo, it's no hellhole. I saw a rightwing news article describing one of the biggest shopping malls in the fucking country as a scary no-go zone full of Muslims. Somehow I find it hard to believe that someone who is both on the opposite side of the world and has 0 personal experience either talking to Swedes or going there themself knows what he is talking about when it comes to matters of Swedish public safety and perception.
Mahogany wrote:
But we're cool with the English
Mahogany wrote:
Fun history lesson: Ireland actually had enough alternative crops and livestock to feed all its people without the need for potatoes.
However, all of those foods were being exported to England to pay rents and such.
Had the Brits just gone "Yo, debts are on pause until your shit gets sorted out" over a million lives could've been saved.
Mahogany wrote:
But we're cool with the English
B1rd wrote:
lmao
Oh yes, "I have a friend in Sweden" so that completely validates everything you've said I'm sure, and I guess now I need to go to Sweden myself to prove anything. How can you assume what experiences I've had talking with Swedes? I've heard Swedes talk about bad experiences there. Maybe you should considered that the accounts of a few Swedes doesn't necessarily indicate the condition of an entire country.
I'm sure we can have lots of fun shitposting about sources tomorrow. In the mean time, I hope you watched the full interview that I linked, because it is a very informative thing to watch.
I'm sure we can have lots of fun shitposting about sources tomorrow. In the mean time, I hope you watched the full interview that I linked, because it is a very informative thing to watch.
We made up with each otherYuudachi-kun wrote:
Mahogany wrote:
But we're cool with the EnglishMahogany wrote:
Fun history lesson: Ireland actually had enough alternative crops and livestock to feed all its people without the need for potatoes.
However, all of those foods were being exported to England to pay rents and such.
Had the Brits just gone "Yo, debts are on pause until your shit gets sorted out" over a million lives could've been saved.
B1rd wrote:
Oh yes, "I have a friend in Sweden" so that completely validates everything you've said I'm sure, and I guess now I need to go to Sweden myself to prove anything. How can you assume what experiences I've had talking with Swedes? I've heard Swedes talk about bad experiences there. Maybe you should considered that the accounts of a few Swedes doesn't necessarily indicate the condition of an entire country.
>been to Stockholm for a combined total of a couple of months, travelling all over the city
>know 7 people who have lived there either as a native or having recently immigrated there
>have talked to several people from gothenburg and a couple from malmo
Please tell me more about how these experiences are worthless. The media you speak so highly of ROUTINELY uses anecdotal evidence of a far lower quality than this amount of varied personal experience.
Also worth mentioning- there are problematic areas, it's just that the same exists in every single society. Sweden gets singled out by the right-wing for some reason. I assume it's because they're very left-wing, and rightwingers don't like to see them succeeding a lot.
Polish Empire and all problems are solved
Perhaps in the same way leftist hate to see the success of Switzerland? It has high gun ownership but also has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe. It has has one of the highest economic freedom ratings in the world, no minimum wage, and low taxes, yet is one of, if not the richest country in the world in wealth per capita. Also worth noting that the country lacks any significant income from the export of natural resources like some of the other European countries do.
If Sweden does fall like a lot of right-wingers say it will, maybe Poland will rise again
AVENGE 1772Zain Sugieres wrote:
Polish Empire and all problems are solved
Leftists hate Switzerland???B1rd wrote:
Perhaps in the same way leftist hate to see the success of Switzerland? It has high gun ownership but also has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe. It has has one of the highest economic freedom ratings in the world, no minimum wage, and low taxes, yet is one of, if not the richest country in the world in wealth per capita. Also worth noting that the country lacks any significant income from the export of natural resources like some of the other European countries do.
I thought they're acknowledged as a place that can function just fine with weapons, so long as they're sufficiently controlled. What are you even talking about? I know people make jokes about them having Nazi gold and all, but I've never heard any of the vile hate towards it that you see coming from the right directed at Sweden, Germany, France, etc.
Right-wingers in general just seem to be a bit too hell-bent on dragging other countries down so long as they disagree with them. It's quite disgusting, honestly.
Sufficiently controlled? It isn't "controlled", that's the point. People can carry guns on public transport if they wish. I haven't seen a lot of hate directed as Switzerland per se, but I've seen a lot of hate and fear-mongering about right-wing policy that work very well there, concerning gun-rights, taxes, privitisation of industry, et cetera. Usually this sort of hate is directed at America, and of course every problem America has is blamed directly on the right-wing policy.
Disgusting? You're gonna use that word? I think we the people who want to defend their homeland and their culture from hordes of third world immigrants is admirable actually.
Anyway, this really will be the my last comment for tonight, watch the video I linked.
Disgusting? You're gonna use that word? I think we the people who want to defend their homeland and their culture from hordes of third world immigrants is admirable actually.
Anyway, this really will be the my last comment for tonight, watch the video I linked.
Are you stupid?B1rd wrote:
Sufficiently controlled? It isn't "controlled", that's the point.
You need permits for both buying and carrying a gun in public. On top of that, around two-thirds of Swiss men receive military training once they're an adult due to how their conscription works.
"It isn't controlled" is such a pathetically ignorant statement to make. Please know anything about what you're talking about if you're wanting to disagree with me in your efforts to prove that the Left are irrational and don't care about facts.
Switzerland has a functioning educational system, unlike most of the rest of the world
what happened to zain's?lol wrote:
anyone got a nice discord server to chill in
its not very active at this time of nightKisses wrote:
what happened to zain's?lol wrote:
anyone got a nice discord server to chill in
it stopped being active for a while
hmmm... would a public server interest you?
define public, I guess. As in, they let random people in?