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.
