Comfy Slippers wrote:
...finna
...niggas
JUST USE PROPER FKN ENGLISH GODFUCKIIASIPGHOASINGDAMMIT........ BEING ALL CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG DOESNT MAKE YOU SOUDN OCOOL JSAUTASU JUST FUCKIN STOPPPPPPP
YOU KNOW NOTHING COMFY SLIPPERSComfy Slippers wrote:
...finna
...niggas
JUST USE PROPER FKN ENGLISH GODFUCKIIASIPGHOASINGDAMMIT........ BEING ALL CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG DOESNT MAKE YOU SOUDN OCOOL JSAUTASU JUST FUCKIN STOPPPPPPP
At least the chemical attacks will be replaced by codeine attacks 👀👍👌Hika wrote:
This fucking hit me so hardJordan wrote:
Please stop
this shit used to be my jamkai99 wrote:
Comfy Slippers wrote:
...finna
...niggas
JUST USE PROPER FKN ENGLISH GODFUCKIIASIPGHOASINGDAMMIT........ BEING ALL CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG DOESNT MAKE YOU SOUDN OCOOL JSAUTASU JUST FUCKIN STOPPPPPPP
Hika's a hood nigger, what do you expect? :pComfy Slippers wrote:
...finna
...niggas
JUST USE PROPER FKN ENGLISH GODFUCKIIASIPGHOASINGDAMMIT........ BEING ALL CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG DOESNT MAKE YOU SOUDN OCOOL JSAUTASU JUST FUCKIN STOPPPPPPP
Statistically speaking, things are going really well. So no, there'd need to be a ridiculous upturn in violence before you could even begin to make that point.B1rd wrote:
I wonder how many people need to be run over with trucks before people realise that immigrants in Europe pose some issues.
Hi I'm B1rd and I use people's deaths to push my political agendaB1rd wrote:
I wonder how many people need to be run over with trucks before people realise that immigrants in Europe pose some issues.
While I don't agree with what he's saying, it's not much different from someone who complains about starving kids in Africa and how people don't think about the problem. Would you tell them that they're using deaths to push their political agenda? Not really, they're just concerned in their own ways. The difference is that blaming immigrants in general for truck accidents is just another correlation versus causation problem.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Hi I'm B1rd and I use people's deaths to push my political agendaB1rd wrote:
I wonder how many people need to be run over with trucks before people realise that immigrants in Europe pose some issues.
Yeah, perhaps I should've clarified a bit more. I wasn't exactly looking to make a compelling argument in my post, though, it was just frustrating to see that kind of thing being done- especially in a non-anonymous environment (well, less anonymous than 4chan, anyway), which I believe are better suited to such, uh, non-standard "arguments" being made.Foxtrot wrote:
While I don't agree with what he's saying, it's not much different from someone who complains about starving kids in Africa and how people don't think about the problem. Would you tell them that they're using deaths to push their political agenda? Not really, they're just concerned in their own ways. The difference is that blaming immigrants in general for truck accidents is just another correlation versus causation problem.
No, I don't make those arguments. I think they're incredibly stupid.Railey2 wrote:
vipper you'd probably make a similar argument if it was about something you supported.
How many more civilians have to die in airstrikes before the US realizes that it is leading a pointless war?
How many people have to die in the war on drugs before the US comes to its senses and legalizes drugs?
How many people have to die before X?
i can see how they could be distasteful but how are they incredibly stupid?DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
No, I don't make those arguments. I think they're incredibly stupid.Railey2 wrote:
vipper you'd probably make a similar argument if it was about something you supported.
How many more civilians have to die in airstrikes before the US realizes that it is leading a pointless war?
How many people have to die in the war on drugs before the US comes to its senses and legalizes drugs?
How many people have to die before X?
Simply put, I dislike emotional appeal as the -main- way of trying to push an agenda, for the most part. I do see your point that it can be used as a proper argument though, as well as the fact that there are almost definitely a few exceptions that can be made when it comes to morality- i.e. "It's messed up if we allow this dictator to kill people with no repercussions", or something, but clearly I must see a difference in this case- probably because of how loosely connected the event and the conclusion are. I was thinking of many similar things when I wrote my post; I've seen that style of argument used a lot of times over the years, first from the left (This one thing happened to a black person somewhere, therefore all police are racist!!, things like that), while the right-wing have been using these emotional appeals as justification for anti-immigrant policy for as long as I can remember. Look at Tommy Robinson/the EDL's main points for further context if you'd like to see examples from my own country that I have experience with. I suppose I should learn to state my points in a more isolated manner from things like this, though, for the reason that Aurani gives- I'm clearly involving my own emotions here.Railey2 wrote:
i can see how they could be distasteful but how are they incredibly stupid?
Peoples lives are a VERY important variable for large scale decisions, some people would even argue that they are the most important variable.
''How many people have to die before X'' is just another way of saying: ''hey there are people dying and i feel you should prioritize preventing that, plus i'm also going to try and make you feel a bit bad about it''
it's not a complete argument on its own, but it is a very valid and common sentiment that can easily be extended to be part of a proper argument.
i certainly wouldn't call it incredibly stupid.
kai99 wrote:
\o/
That's pretty much what I meant, using the deaths of others (as an isolated event, not part of broader statistics used in a non-dishonest manner) was just one example of it. Sorry if that wasn't very clear, like I said, I haven't been in a mood to make big clear arguments right now!Railey2 wrote:
well now you just completely changed your point from ''i don't like people using the deaths of others for an argument'' to
''i don't like emotionally charged reasoning''
Nothing is left of the original discussion
Tbh in its current "murricanized" state, Africa is completely lost. There is no reason what-so-ever to sink money into something that's so socially backwards that you'd need to either wipe the land and destroy entire cultures or spend hundreds of trillions to slowly, over the next couple hundred years "force-advance" the culture and traditions those people are influenced by, at which point we're still going to destroy most of the old culture and traditions there, because we see what even slow Westernization (Globalization) does to the rest of the world.Endaris wrote:
For me it is not the emotional part nor the part of using deaths but actively using such events to bloat them so that other important things are covered.
I mean it is not like the situation in Africa was ever good but we only broadcast it when they suddenly want to get a prosperous life or get massacred.
It is a welcome opportunity to say some strong words without negative repercussions and working on your image as a politician.
Africa has actually been going through a shitload of improvement in the last 20-30 years, hasn't it? I thought there were huge technological/cultural advances there.Aurani wrote:
Tbh in its current "murricanized" state, Africa is completely lost. There is no reason what-so-ever to sink money into something that's so socially backwards that you'd need to either wipe the land and destroy entire cultures or spend hundreds of trillions to slowly, over the next couple hundred years "force-advance" the culture and traditions those people are influenced by, at which point we're still going to destroy most of the old culture and traditions there, because we see what even slow Westernization (Globalization) does to the rest of the world.Endaris wrote:
For me it is not the emotional part nor the part of using deaths but actively using such events to bloat them so that other important things are covered.
I mean it is not like the situation in Africa was ever good but we only broadcast it when they suddenly want to get a prosperous life or get massacred.
It is a welcome opportunity to say some strong words without negative repercussions and working on your image as a politician.
Speaking of which, I now feel like rewatching "The gods must be crazy"... the only movie I've watched so far that makes me feel happy at my very core. Such a lighthearted thing.
Hi I'm a left-winger and I try and shift the blame to the other party by insulting them when they point out clear examples of deaths caused by immigrants.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Hi I'm B1rd and I use people's deaths to push my political agenda
What part of my statement exactly don't you agree with? Why is it so difficult to causation in the correlation of the large amounts of terrorist by immigrants in the countries that has accepted large amounts of immigrants? You would have to do some serious mental gymnastics to try and blame them on something else and say that the immigrants are not part of the problem.Foxtrot wrote:
While I don't agree with what he's saying, it's not much different from someone who complains about starving kids in Africa and how people don't think about the problem. Would you tell them that they're using deaths to push their political agenda? Not really, they're just concerned in their own ways. The difference is that blaming immigrants in general for truck accidents is just another correlation versus causation problem.
B1rd wrote:
Hi I'm a left-winger and I try and shift the blame to the other party by insulting them when they point out clear examples of deaths caused by immigrants.
Also reminds me of something:
[i]"let's just move him a few times to get the best shot"
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Mahogany wrote:
America is an entire country of immigrants yet they don't suffer disproportionate amounts of internal terrorist attacks m8
Yo mate, care, you just told Bird that he can't assume things, yet you just assumed his motives as well. :pDaddyCoolVipper wrote:
Do you know anything about the attacker, or his motivations? The guy was a nut, for sure. He wasn't a refugee and Swedish authorities recognised that- which is why they denied his application. The guy was probably just trying to economically migrate without paying any of the usual costs, which of course doesn't fly there. So he became frustrated, and immediately turned to ISIS because now he suddenly hates Sweden/the West... Even though he literally just wanted to go there because it's better than his home country. He was a fucking stupid and irrational guy with a grudge, not someone you can simply paint with the same brush for your argument of "immigration causes deaths!!". Especially since his application for refugee status was rejected.
DADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADADAkai99 wrote:
Mmmmmmmmmm
Portugal doesnt commit terrorist attacks on other nations tho :vAurani wrote:
The last time anything serious happened in that country that could be branded as an actual terrorist attack was during the early 80s. I could also be reading this very wrong and not realising you're maybe just being incredibly sarcastic, since there is no way you just presented that as a serious argument.
The only two ways of having a diverse country without irrational crime rates is if it either has cultures which are very like-minded in nature or cultures that accept and adapt to the major culture in that nationA culture that refuses to accept and adapt to changes will be wiped out. That's how the world works, and it's well deserved. But in the same manner, the major culture will acquire traits from the new members, and it constantly shifts over time: It's not set in stone and won't be the same forever.
Bombing (I think you wanted to say meddling in world politics) has nothing to do with crime in the country and should not be used as an argument. Britain ruled over half of the world at its peak, meddled in ALL of world's affairs, yet you sure as fuck don't see Britain appearing in history books as a country filled with terrorism and high crime rates. Why? Well, they may have "owned" half the world, but they were still British on the actual British Isles. Therefore, kind of a moot point there.Mahogany wrote:
Well, when was the last time you heard about Scotland bombing somebody? I think the lesser amounts of crime in those places have a lot more behind them than simply conservatism. America, for one, has a fucked-up view of themselves and the rest of the world.
Media is heavily polarized in every country all across the globe. Can't be used as an argument for America, since it's the same for everyone.Mahogany wrote:
Look at their fucked media for example, on both sides. Even when it comes to Japan, for example, you have to look at their relations with Korea; It would be far healthier to have more friendly relations - and therefore more mingling of both sides - rather than keeping hostile exclusionistic ideas that carry with them the idea of nationalism and war. I mean, a terrorist attack? Horrible, but very few people actually die. War? Deadly, and that's what these attitudes lead to.
Where have you visited it? I visited Bavaria about a year ago and it is INCREDIBLY unstable when it comes to crime rate. Not only that, but those same immigrants are here, quite literally 100km from me and I've seen those too. Completely different, alien, culture that will NEVER assimilate with the dominant ones. It's practically the same with USA - cultures which can never merge, only attempt to coexist, thus causing a LOT of friction compared to countries with more cultural unity.Mahogany wrote:
I've visited Germany myself many, many times both before and after the whole immigrant thing. I have family in Germany. Literally nothing has changed there, at all. It's dramatization by the media, because that gets clicks. Germany has low crime rates because it's a well-developed country, not because it's homogeneous.
As I said above, I do agree with you that media is toxic and completely blows things out of proportion for their own gain, but every country's media is the same. Serbia has the same bullshit media coverage as the US or Hungary or Spain. Media as a whole is like that, so you can't take it out for a specific country to support a claim.Mahogany wrote:
I kinda agree with you on the USA part, but I don't think that's quite the source of their crime problems. I think it has a lot to do with education and the media.
Look at Bosnia. The dominant culture has historically always been Serbian, at times Croatian (depending on how the empires around grew and died), yet when the Ottomans conquered the place hundreds of years ago, they left converted Serbs/Croats who now identify themselves as a completely new culture with islam as their religion. They have yet to "assimilate", and they sure as fuck aren't dying out.Mahogany wrote:
A culture that refuses to accept and adapt to changes will be wiped out. That's how the world works, and it's well deserved. But in the same manner, the major culture will acquire traits from the new members, and it constantly shifts over time: It's not set in stone and won't be the same forever.
You just spoiled it ._.Aurani wrote:
^Adolf Hitler, Weimar speech of 1938.
Well, the Academic classes were from England. Of course you don't see them appearing in history books as terrorists. I'm not sure if you've read Irish history, but they were absolutely terrorists.Aurani wrote:
Bombing (I think you wanted to say meddling in world politics) has nothing to do with crime in the country and should not be used as an argument. Britain ruled over half of the world at its peak, meddled in ALL of world's affairs, yet you sure as fuck don't see Britain appearing in history books as a country filled with terrorism and high crime rates. Why? Well, they may have "owned" half the world, but they were still British on the actual British Isles. Therefore, kind of a moot point there.
American media has immense influence and control over its people, though. Without this cultural identity, people look to the media to find one. I think this, at least, causes a lot of their problems.Aurani wrote:
Media is heavily polarized in every country all across the globe. Can't be used as an argument for America, since it's the same for everyone.
Hey, I recognize there's a difference between conservatives and nationalism. Nationalism by its very nature leads to war.Aurani wrote:
As for war - unless we're going back to 1800s, war has only ever been an outlet for an economically and politically struggling nation, not because people were "overly conservative". Being fanatic in that regard only correlates to war crimes, not the actual outbreak of the war and is thus, once again, a moot point.
The greater Cologne/Dusseldorf area as well as Berlin.Aurani wrote:
Where have you visited it?
The only reason it will "NEVER" assimilate is because of the extremists on both sides. Eventually, they will be left behind and the moderates will merge cultures. Just need to get rid of extremists and the problem is solved.Aurani wrote:
Completely different, alien, culture that will NEVER assimilate with the dominant ones. It's practically the same with USA - cultures which can never merge, only attempt to coexist, thus causing a LOT of friction compared to countries with more cultural unity.
I've said it earlier, but I'll say it again here: the idea of having Tradition can counter the effects of media's coverage. Ireland, as with any other country, has bullshit outlets that spread lies and hate, but we still remain a fairly moderate, centrist country. We've had a good history of being helped by foreigners, and that outweighs some of the less savvy media's sabotage attempts.Aurani wrote:
every country's media is the same. Serbia has the same bullshit media coverage as the US or Hungary or Spain. Media as a whole is like that, so you can't take it out for a specific country to support a claim.
Then fuck them, fuck the people who don't want to adapt. But always welcome the people who will.Aurani wrote:
They sure as fuck don't seem like they're going to adapt and the same is true for every other country.
Why not? Fuck the extremists and all that, but most people just want to live their lives.Aurani wrote:
They're way too different to fit in. They can attempt to coexist, but never merge with such a vastly different culture group, and THAT is the core of the problem USA faces and why the entire "immigrant" mindset is as it is right now.
ever considered a career on /pol/ ?B1rd wrote:
lmao, I have to paste in the url because youtube doesn't show up for me, but I knew it was gonna be THE GREATEST STORY NEVER TOLD
https://puu.sh/vhT1y/3f4d6a0297.webm I am reminded of this guy when I see some forum members post sometimes
Uh, no. Globalism has been solely achieved through imperialism and aggressive social policies, not democracy.B1rd wrote:
Well first off, multiculturalism and globalism are products of the Democratic system. Tax payers of these social democracies have to pay for these Muslims that are coming en masse to their nation. And it's done because the politicians and globalists gain some sort of advantage from this, and with their social engineering and propaganda they can get the plebs on board with it as well.
Every time I think of that argument it's the reaction that a Monarchist half a century ago would have to the idea of Democracy. I think that as humanity advances culturally and technologically, and as we are the product of two millennia of scientists and philosophers, we can advance our political systems to be something better.
Yeah, I know of the IRA and the natural aggression between England and Ireland during history. That's the thing tho, the terrorist attacks were mostly due to special historical relations between England/Britain and Ireland, and can only marginally be attributed to culture.Mahogany wrote:
Well, the Academic classes were from England. Of course you don't see them appearing in history books as terrorists. I'm not sure if you've read Irish history, but they were absolutely terrorists.
I struggle to see your view there. I'm positively sure that media has a grip on people all around the globe, regardless of cultural identity. There are always different news outlets who "compete" with each other and attract people to their side, simply because it's their grand scheme of making money. That goes for both USA and every other country. Heck, my grandparents always bought opposing newspapers and since they were intellectuals, they would argue every single day about what is right and wrong, yet they were identical in both culture, social standing and upbringing. Now, of course, back then the news were actually news and not a bunch of clickbait, but the gist remains the same - news are inherently polarizing, no matter which country we talk about and it impacts and penetrates every culture alike.Mahogany wrote:
American media has immense influence and control over its people, though. Without this cultural identity, people look to the media to find one. I think this, at least, causes a lot of their problems.
Statistically speaking, extremists make up a small portion of the general populace and news are definitely not enough to impact an entire people into never assimilating.Mahogany wrote:
The only reason it will "NEVER" assimilate is because of the extremists on both sides. Eventually, they will be left behind and the moderates will merge cultures. Just need to get rid of extremists and the problem is solved.
You can't exactly "fuck them", since that would mean you becoming an extremist as well.Mahogany wrote:
Then fuck them, fuck the people who don't want to adapt. But always welcome the people who will.
Yeah, I do agree with that, but we're talking about the bigger picture here. The small fry always pays for the appetite of bigger, more ambitious ideologists.Mahogany wrote:
Why not? Fuck the extremists and all that, but most people just want to live their lives.
No, Globalism is something of a recent phenomenon of the last century. Imperialism was prominent before that but it implies a nationalistic environment where you have a lot of countries fighting for dominance. Imperialism is outdated now, because instead of countries fighting against each other the traditional way, the world leaders just collude and extend their power that way. Also, social policy is a direct product of Democracy.Aurani wrote:
Uh, no. Globalism has been solely achieved through imperialism and aggressive social policies, not democracy.
I'm not saying Democracy is perfect in any way, shape or form (I even said it's the shittiest in theory), but we, right now, in 2017, have NO alternative that could realistically work. In specific cases other systems could definitely be implemented, but when we look at the general and major world powers, nothing short from a democratic form can work long-term.
But they were terrorists all the same. Their horrific acts are downplayed because they were the ones writing the books, but put it under scrutiny and it's easy to see the horrors of what they did.Aurani wrote:
Yeah, I know of the IRA and the natural aggression between England and Ireland during history. That's the thing tho, the terrorist attacks were mostly due to special historical relations between England/Britain and Ireland, and can only marginally be attributed to culture.
Then I don't see why you disagree with me, since then people would be adapting to the new cultures just fine.Aurani wrote:
Statistically speaking, extremists make up a small portion of the general populace and news are definitely not enough to impact an entire people into never assimilating.
Intolerance of the intolerant is not intolerance itself and indeed is necessary for a tolerant society to exist and for people's rights to be upheld.Aurani wrote:
You can't exactly "fuck them", since that would mean you becoming an extremist as well.
Well I mean, you can take that argument and adapt it: There's naturally less money to be made in Ireland, so it would be less lucrative and therefore less influential on people.Aurani wrote:
I struggle to see your view there. I'm positively sure that media has a grip on people all around the globe, regardless of cultural identity. There are always different news outlets who "compete" with each other and attract people to their side, simply because it's their grand scheme of making money. That goes for both USA and every other country.
But wouldn't that only support my initial point that differing cultures who don't adapt offer nothing but massively increased crime rates? I mean you just said it there. :pMahogany wrote:
But they were terrorists all the same. Their horrific acts are downplayed because they were the ones writing the books, but put it under scrutiny and it's easy to see the horrors of what they did.
Have you read about the north? The native Irish are still besieged by the immigrant English and their culture. It's a massive dividing line up there, and has caused an immense amount of crime. I'm not choosing sides with them, but the English there caused a bunch of crime. They just exported the terrorism and crime, keeping it out of their own country. That is their culture. You can see the same thing happening with the US!
It's because I don't think modernist islam can adapt and merge with other cultures. They're doing everything in their power to resist being assimilated, which is the original topic of this discussion, before we expanded it onto the world theatre.Mahogany wrote:
Then I don't see why you disagree with me, since then people would be adapting to the new cultures just fine.
Can't argue with that, so yeah, agreed.Mahogany wrote:
Well I mean, you can take that argument and adapt it: There's naturally less money to be made in Ireland, so it would be less lucrative and therefore less influential on people.
Also! Good education helps people spot bias and find the truth of a matter. A well educated country isn't as vulnerable to the grip of the media.
hey, i live there!Aurani wrote:
Where have you visited it? I visited Bavaria about a year ago and it is INCREDIBLY unstable when it comes to crime rate. Not only that, but those same immigrants are here, quite literally 100km from me and I've seen those too. Completely different, alien, culture that will NEVER assimilate with the dominant ones.Mahogany wrote:
I've visited Germany myself many, many times both before and after the whole immigrant thing. I have family in Germany. Literally nothing has changed there, at all. It's dramatization by the media, because that gets clicks. Germany has low crime rates because it's a well-developed country, not because it's homogeneous.
But I support that idea. Fuck people who don't adapt, as I've said. Hell, the rest of Ireland proves that point even further, as there were plenty of brits there and society DID adapt.Aurani wrote:
But wouldn't that only support my initial point that differing cultures who don't adapt offer nothing but massively increased crime rates? I mean you just said it there. :p
So you believe all or most muslims want to enforce shakira law or what-have-you on the rest of the world? I can't ever agree with that. It's hard enough to adapt to a new culture, let alone in today's age with the resurgence of white nationalism.Aurani wrote:
It's because I don't think modernist islam can adapt and merge with other cultures. They're doing everything in their power to resist being assimilated, which is the original topic of this discussion, before we expanded it onto the world theatre.
I guess that's where our opinions differ. Islam has the same level of tradition as Orthodox Christianity has, but combines it with the aggressiveness of Catholic Christianity, thus forming a monster of a religion that cannot function on the same level nor compare to any current religion in the world.Mahogany wrote:
So you believe all or most muslims want to enforce shakira law or what-have-you on the rest of the world? I can't ever agree with that. It's hard enough to adapt to a new culture, let alone in today's age with the resurgence of white nationalism.
thats great, you don't have to take my word for it then: Just take a look at the charts yourself.Aurani wrote:
Ja ja wunderbar!
Jokes aside, I understand German perfectly well. :p
Damn right.Aurani wrote:
Well I mean it's up to you to trust government statistics when we are in the middle of discussing why that same government has fucked the country over. I trust my family and my own eyes more than the government, and that's just natural.
aurani please why do you edit, just respond like a normal person.Aurani wrote:
What are you basing that on? I mean, media or your own eyes? Since part of my family lives there, I can testify what both they said and I saw. It's a disgusting state currently, and even if your point was valid, immigration in Germany began in the late 80s, not 2007.
Fuck you Railey, I ain't deleting this. =D
need you to bomb someone for me thanksMilkshake wrote:
wait what
