forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,691
hello people; tuuba drama was an interesting read
for a second I thought ITT 2 was locked due to the presence of ITT 3 and I almost had a heart attack. Now I'm just angery
for a second I thought ITT 2 was locked due to the presence of ITT 3 and I almost had a heart attack. Now I'm just angery
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.
Why would you stop immigrants when you can wait for them to get enslaved in north africa or dumped into the Mediterranean Sea?
It's actually pretty sad that there is so many of them waiting on the border between Hungary and Serbia, yet we can't fill them with lead. It's like we're willingly letting the cancer that is modern Islam spread through our lands. :V
['90s accordion music intensifies]
['90s accordion music intensifies]
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.
To elaborate then- I really hate it whenever anyone takes a single event, ESPECIALLY a tragedy, and uses it for their own politics. I think it's a pathetic thing to do that speaks a lot more to the person's ridiculous confirmation bias than anything else- they see one thing, it appeals to their emotions, and they use that to further their political agenda by trying to appeal to other people's same emotions. How about we step back from shit like that and actually try to use more meaningful facts and statistics if we want to make big, generalising arguments, instead of: "LOOK AT THIS ONE AWFUL THING, PEOPLE DIED, THIS MEANS I'M RIGHT!"
You know? I just think that kind of thing is bullshit, and I'm sick of seeing anybody using it. Don't be so disrespectful.
edit: Worth mentioning is that this isn't necessarily a simple frustration at "correlation=causation", it's deeper than that.
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?
are you telling me you've never made that sort of argument before?
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?
are you telling me you've never made that sort of argument before?
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?
Thinking of going outside and buy some cola at midnight.
What I really don't like about your post, Viper, is that it's extremely shallow when you look at it from a neutral standpoint. You are immediately basing the entire point around the opinion that someone is being emotionally charged up and thus basing their point of view on that.
In a way, it's pretty ironic that you're branding him while you made your own biased and skewed commentary to counter his.
In a way, it's pretty ironic that you're branding him while you made your own biased and skewed commentary to counter his.
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?
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.
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.
But yeah, in general terms, I don't like it when emotion is the main reason for pushing any particular policy. This applies to every argument that I've actually seen being made in a serious manner over the past, I don't know, 10 years- I haven't been following politics for that much of my life, but from what I've seen, this argument is generally BS used to further an agenda without real facts/data supporting them in an attempt to get people to blindly follow their worldview, which is very stupid indeed.
Sorry if this is hard to understand/rambly, not really in the mood to make a well-constructed post on this subject I guess
\o/
kai99 wrote:
\o/
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
''i don't like emotionally charged reasoning''
Nothing is left of the original discussion
To be completely honest here, even a disjointed "rambly" discussion is better than whatever the fuck usually goes on in ITT. I do enjoy it when people try to reason with each other, as Viper is doing with you. Don't bash it in just yet.
i too don't like it when emotion interferes with decision-making, especially when it matters - like it does in politics.
i'm on vippers side 100 percent here
i'm on vippers side 100 percent here
Emotions are a powerful tool in decision-making. After all, they are one of our primal instincts - something that helped us survive and get to where we are now. Pure logical thinking can be as toxic to your being as being overly emotional; there are always extremes that must be avoided, which includes being utterly devoid of emotions.
That being said, there is also blind fanaticism and it's just the other side of the same coin - something to be avoided at all costs.
That being said, there is also blind fanaticism and it's just the other side of the same coin - something to be avoided at all costs.
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
Also yeah I love ITT when it turns into politics or other serious discussion, it's fun and lets people talk to each other on a more meaningful level than the usual spam. God bless
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.
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.
As long as we can agree bird doesnt know shit then I'm game
hiya
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.
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.
Only in specific (read: westernized) regions. Mostly Southern and Western Africa. Central and Eastern parts are still on the same technological and cultural level as they were back in late 1920s...
It also doesn't help that most regions can't be controlled and are completely anarchic in nature. The situation is far, far worse there than it is in the Middle East, but media don't give a shit, as it brings no money to talk about it.
It also doesn't help that most regions can't be controlled and are completely anarchic in nature. The situation is far, far worse there than it is in the Middle East, but media don't give a shit, as it brings no money to talk about it.
The West has spent billions of dollars in Africa through aid programs and charity; all it does is boost the population to an unsustainable level. Also, Africa was 100x better off under the apartheid that after it. Liberation of Rhodesia when?
Also reminds me of something:
"let's just move him a few times to get the best shot"
These terrorist attacks and trucks running over people is not an isolated incident. It's just that some people are too ideologically biased to see or solve the problem.
edit: I stand corrected, looks like Sweden is right on track https://translate.google.com/translate? ... t=&act=url
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
Also reminds me of something:
"let's just move him a few times to get the best shot"
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.
These terrorist attacks and trucks running over people is not an isolated incident. It's just that some people are too ideologically biased to see or solve the problem.
edit: I stand corrected, looks like Sweden is right on track https://translate.google.com/translate? ... t=&act=url
All of africas problems could be solved by the free market
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"
Okay, there's a few things I'd like to talk about here.
Firstly, for the record, I never supported or cared for that emotional appeal either. Don't just assume I did because I identify with the left wing, or whatever. Secondly, "deaths caused by immigrants" isn't something you want to point at isolated cases for if you'd like to make any kind of meaningful point. This is ESPECIALLY true with the Stockholm attack, the one that you just used as your "evidence".
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.
Also, I think civilian walkways should have the kind of temporary metal pole things you can find in use in Germany. They prevent vehicles from driving on them, not just in case of terrorist attacks, but also stopping any legitimate accidents/idiocy like driving down the wrong street.
Whether he was accepted as a refugee or not is irrelevant; if you let dangerous terrorists into your country and only kick them out moths later after you've rejected their refugee application then obviously that is a fundamental flaw in your system. And all you said about his motives is pure speculation. I just found it funny how you were previously going on about how you'd went to Stockholm and how it was so peaceful and everything, and then two moths later some immigrant runs over people in a truck.
Of course immigration is related to all these terror attacks, anyone with any amount of common sense could see that. Because if these people aren't in the West, how would they commit terror attacks in the West? I'll let you think about that for a while. But of course the left-wing media and countries vehemently denies any ties to immigration or race, and they will even fight to make any news stories completely cover up race UNLESS it is a white male. If there is an isolated incident where a White nationalist shoots up a church or does something bad, the will publicise it and use the deaths of the victims to further their political agenda until kingdom come. While doing all the research about immigration in Europe has tempered my opinion somewhat, it is still very clear that immigrants to Europe are bad news in which terrorist attacks are just one, and that the establishment is doing their best to cover up these problems.
Of course immigration is related to all these terror attacks, anyone with any amount of common sense could see that. Because if these people aren't in the West, how would they commit terror attacks in the West? I'll let you think about that for a while. But of course the left-wing media and countries vehemently denies any ties to immigration or race, and they will even fight to make any news stories completely cover up race UNLESS it is a white male. If there is an isolated incident where a White nationalist shoots up a church or does something bad, the will publicise it and use the deaths of the victims to further their political agenda until kingdom come. While doing all the research about immigration in Europe has tempered my opinion somewhat, it is still very clear that immigrants to Europe are bad news in which terrorist attacks are just one, and that the establishment is doing their best to cover up these problems.
America is an entire country of immigrants yet they don't suffer disproportionate amounts of internal terrorist attacks m8
Mmmmmmmmmm
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????Mahogany wrote:
America is an entire country of immigrants yet they don't suffer disproportionate amounts of internal terrorist attacks m8
I mean, let's compare America to a normal European country like Portugal. I'd have taken a country on the Balkan but you probably would've had something against it, so there's a random unimportant European country instead.
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.
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.
Unless Sweden released some kind of evidence confirming what you just said.
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.
Half-sarcasm, half-serious. All things considered, it's surprising how few attacks take place. I hear a lot more of hate crimes and school shootings than I do of actual terrorist attacks, so yeah, in proportion, they don't suffer too many terrorist attacks.
That's the thing, we're not trying to go deeper into the very core of the specific motivations of those terrorists. We're here to compare two countries based on their criminal activity, and all things considered, America is seriously up there when it comes to crime.
Just look at other countries like Japan, Australia, India, Poland, Scotland (yeah, fuck you Great Britain), Serbia, Croatia, China etc. What do they all have in common? They were incredibly conservative and focused on tradition and you sure as fuck don't see almost any terrorist attacks there that were committed by the major ethnic group in those countries.
I mean there are tonnes upon tonnes of arguments here I could throw that indicate that the more ethnically diverse a nation is, the higher the probability of crime is. Look at how Germany was before it accepted muslims en masse for the first time during the early 90s:
No unrest or incidents concerning minorities.
Today we'd be laughing if we said that there are no daily incidents which are connected to a random minority group there.
The ONLY counter-argument I could see here would be that France was historically a very diverse country and had almost no problems with it up until modern terrorism arrived, but you have to understand that France is in a special place when it comes to diversity. The Algerians who made up most of the "minority" population were born as French citizens, spoke French, brought up with French etiquette in mind and even culturally identified themselves as French.
Meanwhile, the very reason USA is so shit at handling crime is because it's diverse in a wrong sense. Americans have no "culture" of their own - it's a mishmash of cultures that clashed together and are attempting to coexist, even though it's been proven again and again it simply can't work without major attrition.
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 nation (French historical example).
Just look at other countries like Japan, Australia, India, Poland, Scotland (yeah, fuck you Great Britain), Serbia, Croatia, China etc. What do they all have in common? They were incredibly conservative and focused on tradition and you sure as fuck don't see almost any terrorist attacks there that were committed by the major ethnic group in those countries.
I mean there are tonnes upon tonnes of arguments here I could throw that indicate that the more ethnically diverse a nation is, the higher the probability of crime is. Look at how Germany was before it accepted muslims en masse for the first time during the early 90s:
No unrest or incidents concerning minorities.
Today we'd be laughing if we said that there are no daily incidents which are connected to a random minority group there.
The ONLY counter-argument I could see here would be that France was historically a very diverse country and had almost no problems with it up until modern terrorism arrived, but you have to understand that France is in a special place when it comes to diversity. The Algerians who made up most of the "minority" population were born as French citizens, spoke French, brought up with French etiquette in mind and even culturally identified themselves as French.
Meanwhile, the very reason USA is so shit at handling crime is because it's diverse in a wrong sense. Americans have no "culture" of their own - it's a mishmash of cultures that clashed together and are attempting to coexist, even though it's been proven again and again it simply can't work without major attrition.
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 nation (French historical example).
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you want to claim that the situation in Bosnia is special, lemme then take Serbian muslims as an example. In central Serbia, ever since the Ottomans left, you have muslims who refuse to assimilate, refuse to accept the Serbian culture (the most dominant one in the country), refuse to abide by the country's law and are practically a ticking time bomb, only waiting for the country to weaken so they can cause unrest.
You know how long that has been going on? Since the mid 1800s. They sure as fuck don't seem like they're going to adapt and the same is true for every other country.
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.
I have nothing against other cultures and religions, heck, I actually liked pre-medieval islamic culture, but to say that we can live together without major issues is definitely something I will argue against no matter what, as it's been proven time and time again that it's wrong.
far-left is wrong on so many levels. On another note, I want to address this, and give my 2 cents as someone who lives in a moderately muslim surrounding.
According to reliable sources nearly 20% of muslim population are infact extremists. Now, this is where most half-blindly agree on this and stop, but they also don't account for others that support this kind of system. And at the end of the day, you are looking at roughly about 1/3 of entire followers who are looking to bring western society down. So, why I brought my surrounding is just because of this. I can confirm that people actually support these people and absolutely despise west. History taught us (numerous times) that majority number doesn't count. Japan, Germany, Russia and so on. Now what caught my eye is that someone here said something along the lines of "immigration wasn't an issue in that instance", which is partially true but also completely wrong since history is usually written by victors and in instances completely made up. Colonization of north america was mostly build on inhabiting territories and deporting, banishing natives. In south and central, it was conquistadors who murdered, raped and plundered natives. Nobody batted an eye. Mostly due to how these territories had outdated political systems and how they were regulated. It's a fact that they were borderline primitives. Now today, where the world is in information age and where everyone has connection to one another, it's a whole different ball game. While you have modernized and semi-modernized countries you still have a cultural differences that cannot be overcome. Foundations of US, basically, revolves around slavery if you think about it. But it was fixed. US had these cultural differences, but it was fixed. It was unstable, but it was fixed. The country operated well and created the most fierce geopolitical power in the history of mankind. Which is where Germany, nordic countries, France and most of west in general are wrong. I'm a person who believes that ideologies and political systems should change according to situations. If we need fascism and dictatorship to function, it's ok (even if it's morally, politically and socially wrong in a long run) -- and now this sort of liberal view that we see is just not cutting it. The percentage of "bad" stuff happening is way too high and taking risks is not an option imho. Mixing religion with politics is a recipe for disaster, not because of their nature but because of how religions were build through time. Essentially, 2 same things clashing. They are nothing but politically driven systems that drive society to a certain point. The ancient Hebrews were almost certainly polytheistic, but even so they are the first monotheistic religion which are one of the biggest, if not the biggest factors in the creation of christianity and later on islam. They all have roots in judaism. So why do we have these other tweaked versions of this one? Exactly, to socially and politically adapt to time period and it's surrounding. Which is a sole reason why I'm agnostic right now, which is also totally irrelevant and something I just wanted to point out. These differences were just a boost to a ticking bomb that drives us further away from one another. But this is how we wanted our society to be. Trying to address this and create this utopian surrounding is impossible task to achieve in a short-span and it's something that comes naturally due to common sense. So in this age, pushing multiculturalism is just plain wrong. A lot of middle-eastern people have their own immoral ways of sorting this and they are desperate to climb out of this hole that they dug themselves into. Foreign policies of all the powers meddled where and when they shouldn't. One might say that various conspiracies are taking place and how it's all a race for the oil, and the other will claim otherwise. And there is no right or wrong when we don't know anything. But what we do know and what we can see is people of a certain culture and religion who had open arms to west. Same people who are a massive threat, who kill, rape and violate laws. It's be forced accept this-and-this or be harmed. World doesn't need to change and adapt, it's the muslims that do. And this is why we need right-wing. Playing mr. nice guy might actually get us nowhere.
According to reliable sources nearly 20% of muslim population are infact extremists. Now, this is where most half-blindly agree on this and stop, but they also don't account for others that support this kind of system. And at the end of the day, you are looking at roughly about 1/3 of entire followers who are looking to bring western society down. So, why I brought my surrounding is just because of this. I can confirm that people actually support these people and absolutely despise west. History taught us (numerous times) that majority number doesn't count. Japan, Germany, Russia and so on. Now what caught my eye is that someone here said something along the lines of "immigration wasn't an issue in that instance", which is partially true but also completely wrong since history is usually written by victors and in instances completely made up. Colonization of north america was mostly build on inhabiting territories and deporting, banishing natives. In south and central, it was conquistadors who murdered, raped and plundered natives. Nobody batted an eye. Mostly due to how these territories had outdated political systems and how they were regulated. It's a fact that they were borderline primitives. Now today, where the world is in information age and where everyone has connection to one another, it's a whole different ball game. While you have modernized and semi-modernized countries you still have a cultural differences that cannot be overcome. Foundations of US, basically, revolves around slavery if you think about it. But it was fixed. US had these cultural differences, but it was fixed. It was unstable, but it was fixed. The country operated well and created the most fierce geopolitical power in the history of mankind. Which is where Germany, nordic countries, France and most of west in general are wrong. I'm a person who believes that ideologies and political systems should change according to situations. If we need fascism and dictatorship to function, it's ok (even if it's morally, politically and socially wrong in a long run) -- and now this sort of liberal view that we see is just not cutting it. The percentage of "bad" stuff happening is way too high and taking risks is not an option imho. Mixing religion with politics is a recipe for disaster, not because of their nature but because of how religions were build through time. Essentially, 2 same things clashing. They are nothing but politically driven systems that drive society to a certain point. The ancient Hebrews were almost certainly polytheistic, but even so they are the first monotheistic religion which are one of the biggest, if not the biggest factors in the creation of christianity and later on islam. They all have roots in judaism. So why do we have these other tweaked versions of this one? Exactly, to socially and politically adapt to time period and it's surrounding. Which is a sole reason why I'm agnostic right now, which is also totally irrelevant and something I just wanted to point out. These differences were just a boost to a ticking bomb that drives us further away from one another. But this is how we wanted our society to be. Trying to address this and create this utopian surrounding is impossible task to achieve in a short-span and it's something that comes naturally due to common sense. So in this age, pushing multiculturalism is just plain wrong. A lot of middle-eastern people have their own immoral ways of sorting this and they are desperate to climb out of this hole that they dug themselves into. Foreign policies of all the powers meddled where and when they shouldn't. One might say that various conspiracies are taking place and how it's all a race for the oil, and the other will claim otherwise. And there is no right or wrong when we don't know anything. But what we do know and what we can see is people of a certain culture and religion who had open arms to west. Same people who are a massive threat, who kill, rape and violate laws. It's be forced accept this-and-this or be harmed. World doesn't need to change and adapt, it's the muslims that do. And this is why we need right-wing. Playing mr. nice guy might actually get us nowhere.
WHAT seems to us almost a miracle as we look back upon it is nothing else than the reward for infinite and unwearying labor.... And now for that labor we have received from Providence our reward, just as the Germany of 1918 received its reward. At that time Germany shared in those blessings which we think of under the collective idea Democracy. But Germany has learned that democracy in practice is a different thing from democracy in theory.
If today at times in foreign countries Parliamentarians or politicians venture to maintain that Germany has not kept her treaties, then we can give as our answer to these men: the greatest breach of a treaty that ever was practiced on the German people. Every promise which had been made to Germany in the Fourteen Points - those promises on the faith of which Germany had laid down her arms - was afterwards broken. In 1932 Germany was faced with final collapse. The German Reich and people both seemed lost. And then came the German resurrection. It began with a change of faith. While all the German parties before us believed in forces and ideals which lay outside of the German Reich and outside of our people, we National Socialists have resolutely championed belief in our own people, starting from that watchword of eternal validity: God helps only those who are prepared and determined to help themselves. In the place of all those international factors - Democracy, the Conscience of Peoples, the Conscience of the World, the League of Nations, and the like - we have set a single factor - our own people. . . .
We were all convinced that a true community of the people is not produced overnight - it is not attained through theories or programs - but that through many decades, yes, and perhaps always and for all time the individual must be trained for this community. This work of education we have carried through ever since the Party was founded and especially since we came into power. But nothing is perfect in this world and no success can be felt to be finally satisfying. And so, even today, we have no wish to maintain that our achievement is already the realization of our ideal. We have an ideal which floats before our minds and in accordance with that ideal we educate Germans, generation after generation. So National Socialism will continually be transformed from a profession of political faith to a real education of the people....
The umbrella-carrying types of our former bourgeois world of parties are extinguished and they will never return...
From the very first day I have proclaimed as a fundamental principle: 'the German is either the first soldier in the world or he is no soldier at all.' No soldiers at all we cannot be, and we do not wish to be. Therefore we shall be only the first. As one who is a lover of peace I have endeavored to create for the German people such an army and such munitions as are calculated to convince others, too, to seek peace.
There are, it is true, people who abuse the hedgehog because it has spines. But they have only got to leave the animal in peace. No hedgehog has ever attacked anyone unless he was first threatened. That should be our position, too. Folk must not come too near us. We want nothing else than to be left in peace; we want the possibility of going on with our work, we claim for our people the right to live, the same right which others claim for themselves. And that the democratic States above all others should grasp and understand, for they never stop talking about equality of rights. If they keep talking about the rights of small peoples, how can they be outraged if in its turn a great people claims the same right? Our National Socialist Army serves to secure and guarantee this claim of right.
It is with this in view that in foreign policy also I have initiated a change in our attitude and have drawn closer to those who like us were compelled to stand up for their rights.
And when today I examine the results of this action of ours, then I am able to say: Judge all of you for yourselves: Have we not gained enormously through acting on these principles?
But precisely for this reason we do not wish that we should ever forget what has made these successes of ours possible. When certain foreign newspapers write: 'But all that you could have gained by the way of negotiation,' we know very well that Germany before our day did nothing but negotiate continuously. For fifteen years they only negotiated and they lost everything for their pains. I, too, am ready to negotiate but I leave no one in any doubt that neither by way of negotiation nor by any other way will I allow the rights of Germany to be cut down. Never forget, German people, to what it is you owe your successes - to what Movement, to what ideas, and to what principles! And in the second place: always be cautious, be ever on your guard!
just joining in on wall of text
If today at times in foreign countries Parliamentarians or politicians venture to maintain that Germany has not kept her treaties, then we can give as our answer to these men: the greatest breach of a treaty that ever was practiced on the German people. Every promise which had been made to Germany in the Fourteen Points - those promises on the faith of which Germany had laid down her arms - was afterwards broken. In 1932 Germany was faced with final collapse. The German Reich and people both seemed lost. And then came the German resurrection. It began with a change of faith. While all the German parties before us believed in forces and ideals which lay outside of the German Reich and outside of our people, we National Socialists have resolutely championed belief in our own people, starting from that watchword of eternal validity: God helps only those who are prepared and determined to help themselves. In the place of all those international factors - Democracy, the Conscience of Peoples, the Conscience of the World, the League of Nations, and the like - we have set a single factor - our own people. . . .
We were all convinced that a true community of the people is not produced overnight - it is not attained through theories or programs - but that through many decades, yes, and perhaps always and for all time the individual must be trained for this community. This work of education we have carried through ever since the Party was founded and especially since we came into power. But nothing is perfect in this world and no success can be felt to be finally satisfying. And so, even today, we have no wish to maintain that our achievement is already the realization of our ideal. We have an ideal which floats before our minds and in accordance with that ideal we educate Germans, generation after generation. So National Socialism will continually be transformed from a profession of political faith to a real education of the people....
The umbrella-carrying types of our former bourgeois world of parties are extinguished and they will never return...
From the very first day I have proclaimed as a fundamental principle: 'the German is either the first soldier in the world or he is no soldier at all.' No soldiers at all we cannot be, and we do not wish to be. Therefore we shall be only the first. As one who is a lover of peace I have endeavored to create for the German people such an army and such munitions as are calculated to convince others, too, to seek peace.
There are, it is true, people who abuse the hedgehog because it has spines. But they have only got to leave the animal in peace. No hedgehog has ever attacked anyone unless he was first threatened. That should be our position, too. Folk must not come too near us. We want nothing else than to be left in peace; we want the possibility of going on with our work, we claim for our people the right to live, the same right which others claim for themselves. And that the democratic States above all others should grasp and understand, for they never stop talking about equality of rights. If they keep talking about the rights of small peoples, how can they be outraged if in its turn a great people claims the same right? Our National Socialist Army serves to secure and guarantee this claim of right.
It is with this in view that in foreign policy also I have initiated a change in our attitude and have drawn closer to those who like us were compelled to stand up for their rights.
And when today I examine the results of this action of ours, then I am able to say: Judge all of you for yourselves: Have we not gained enormously through acting on these principles?
But precisely for this reason we do not wish that we should ever forget what has made these successes of ours possible. When certain foreign newspapers write: 'But all that you could have gained by the way of negotiation,' we know very well that Germany before our day did nothing but negotiate continuously. For fifteen years they only negotiated and they lost everything for their pains. I, too, am ready to negotiate but I leave no one in any doubt that neither by way of negotiation nor by any other way will I allow the rights of Germany to be cut down. Never forget, German people, to what it is you owe your successes - to what Movement, to what ideas, and to what principles! And in the second place: always be cautious, be ever on your guard!
just joining in on wall of text
I'm with Adolf on Democracy being a crappy system.
You just spoiled it ._.Aurani wrote:
^Adolf Hitler, Weimar speech of 1938.
I'm completely against his views, and that's coming from someone who studied every single one of his speeches, read his book and is a massive fag for the socio-economic struggles of the early 1920s and the subsequent rise to power of a lunatic as a string of coincidences and fuckups.
Democracy might be the shittiest system we can think of, but we're shitty humans, we're not robots, and thus other more "ideal" political systems can't work in a multicultural and globalized society.
Democracy might be the shittiest system we can think of, but we're shitty humans, we're not robots, and thus other more "ideal" political systems can't work in a multicultural and globalized society.
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.
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.
speaking of hitler
interesting watch
interesting watch
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.
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
https://puu.sh/vhT1y/3f4d6a0297.webm I am reminded of this guy when I see some forum members post sometimes
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
I was banned there before I even posted.
/liberty/ is my usual chill out board.
/liberty/ is my usual chill out board.
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.
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.
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.
Slippers: what are your thoughts on that video?
Speaking of Hitler, what is up with people these days making a fool out of themselves? First Pepsi, then United Airlines, and now, White House Speaker, Sean Spicer.
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.
Globalism is most definitely a recent phenomenon, but is completely and utterly due to imperialism being mixed with technological advances. Democracy did not bring globalism into the world, as I'm sure the kingdoms and empires who first achieved crude globalism weren't in any way, shape or form democratic societies.
Social policies also existed far, far before modern democracy came into being. No, comparing modern democracy with the old Greek variant does not count.
Social policies also existed far, far before modern democracy came into being. No, comparing modern democracy with the old Greek variant does not count.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
Fuck you Railey, I ain't deleting this. =D
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.
here is what you want to look at:
https://www.polizei.bayern.de/content/6 ... t_2016.pdf
(+2 percent)
ignore the grey bars, they count shit like coming to Germany without a passport, which skyrocketed for obvious reasons.
actually most non-german crime wasn't even committed by refugees!
https://puu.sh/vhWtS/4224478d59.png
Sexual crimes like rape make up a minority of crimes by refugees, about 1 percent.
Calling bavaria unstable is simply wrong. The crime per capita rate and overall crime is down over 10 percent since 2007. Overall crime saw an increase of 2 percent last year, but that is within the range of normal fluctuation.
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
There's plenty of responsibility to be taken by the country receiving the immigrants, too, though. You can draw parallels between Irish immigrants travelling to America, and now Muslim immigrants arriving in Europe. Now take a look at Irish in America. They throw bigger St. Patrick's Day celebrations than we do! Give it time, and soon enough the cultures will merge.
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.
Ja ja wunderbar!
Jokes aside, I understand German perfectly well. :p
Also, like I said, you'd have to look at crime rate specifically committed since the arrival of muslims, who arrived well before 2007. Not only that, but I would've taken you as a person who doesn't trust statistics done by the government since that same government is trying to cover up what immigration has done to Germany in the past 20 years. Economically it improved, but socially it's completely down the shitter.
Fanaticism is something inherent to modernist islam, simply because of the abovementioned. Do note that when I say "fanaticism", I don't mean "Allah Akbar! *boom*", but refer to the actual adaptability of its people.
In Orthodox faith, culture is VERY close to religion, but Orthodoxy lacks the level of aggressiveness Islam has, and that's what separates them. You can't "assimilate" muslims from the east the same way you can assimilate other peoples. It just doesn't work that way, and there our opinions differ - I simply don't agree that they can be reasoned with over time. History is far too much on my side for me to believe that.
Jokes aside, I understand German perfectly well. :p
Also, like I said, you'd have to look at crime rate specifically committed since the arrival of muslims, who arrived well before 2007. Not only that, but I would've taken you as a person who doesn't trust statistics done by the government since that same government is trying to cover up what immigration has done to Germany in the past 20 years. Economically it improved, but socially it's completely down the shitter.
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.
Fanaticism is something inherent to modernist islam, simply because of the abovementioned. Do note that when I say "fanaticism", I don't mean "Allah Akbar! *boom*", but refer to the actual adaptability of its people.
In Orthodox faith, culture is VERY close to religion, but Orthodoxy lacks the level of aggressiveness Islam has, and that's what separates them. You can't "assimilate" muslims from the east the same way you can assimilate other peoples. It just doesn't work that way, and there our opinions differ - I simply don't agree that they can be reasoned with over time. History is far too much on my side for me to believe that.
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
Anyway, after reading up to this i've become even more sceptical about the claim that Sweden experiences a rape crisis.
Germany obviously doesn't face a rape crisis according to these stats (if i dare to extrapolate from bavarias stats).
This begs the question: Why would it be so radically different for sweden? What exactly is going on there? Germany accepted more refugees than sweden did, right?
Read what I edited above. :p
Also, Sweden accepted more people based on the percentage of its population compared to Germany, hence the outcry.
Also, Sweden accepted more people based on the percentage of its population compared to Germany, hence the outcry.
i trust these statistics.
if you have a better source to offer you can go ahead and link it, but as long as i don't have something like that i'll stick to this.
Otherwise i might as well say that i believe what i believe because i want to.
The stats weren't that pro immigration btw: it's very apparent that non-german people are FAR more criminal than german-born people. Non-germans were responsible for 35 percent of all crimes, which is huge if you consider that they make up only around 10 percent of the total population.
if these stats were faked to push an agenda, why would they feature something like this?
You can say that you believe that society goes down the shitter, but if you don't have the data to back it up i'll always assume that you're just talking out of your ass. Sry mate
And if you want to look at crime rates before 2007.. expect them to be even higher than in 2007.
if you have a better source to offer you can go ahead and link it, but as long as i don't have something like that i'll stick to this.
Otherwise i might as well say that i believe what i believe because i want to.
The stats weren't that pro immigration btw: it's very apparent that non-german people are FAR more criminal than german-born people. Non-germans were responsible for 35 percent of all crimes, which is huge if you consider that they make up only around 10 percent of the total population.
if these stats were faked to push an agenda, why would they feature something like this?
You can say that you believe that society goes down the shitter, but if you don't have the data to back it up i'll always assume that you're just talking out of your ass. Sry mate
And if you want to look at crime rates before 2007.. expect them to be even higher than in 2007.
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.
In the case of Sweden, we can see that Malmo, the place with a high density of immigrants, has much higher crime than the adjacent cities: https://www.numbeo.com/crime/gmaps_rankings.jsp
I've also become aware that immigrants are over represented in crime based on some older studies, but recently Sweden has refused to include racial demographics into their statistics. Statistics of Sweden showing violent crimes have increased: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fgJA1jEyqc
And here is a video of a journalist investigating Rinkeby, a place in Stockholm, and has to be escorted out by police because some immigrants were "masking up", and they were warned that there could be a flash mob. That glance at 1:07 tho... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODw7o34Vdbk
Later, the Swedish media completely lied about what happened. I've also discovered that the Swedish police chief has direct ties to Left Wing political parties, which explains why police statements differ so much to what actually has been happening.
So, pretty good evidence of ties to immigration and crime, and evidence of the establishment trying to cover this up. However one very important thing that I have learned, and I've read this in Australian newspapers as well, is that crime is much higher among second and third generation immigrants. So there may not be an overly strong correlation between recent immigrants and crime, however in the long run it causes many problems in a society, not just limited to crime but including many other social and economic problems. This is supported by Tim Pool's conclusion after his investigation of Sweden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0p7Oyvql9s
I've also become aware that immigrants are over represented in crime based on some older studies, but recently Sweden has refused to include racial demographics into their statistics. Statistics of Sweden showing violent crimes have increased: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fgJA1jEyqc
And here is a video of a journalist investigating Rinkeby, a place in Stockholm, and has to be escorted out by police because some immigrants were "masking up", and they were warned that there could be a flash mob. That glance at 1:07 tho... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODw7o34Vdbk
Later, the Swedish media completely lied about what happened. I've also discovered that the Swedish police chief has direct ties to Left Wing political parties, which explains why police statements differ so much to what actually has been happening.
So, pretty good evidence of ties to immigration and crime, and evidence of the establishment trying to cover this up. However one very important thing that I have learned, and I've read this in Australian newspapers as well, is that crime is much higher among second and third generation immigrants. So there may not be an overly strong correlation between recent immigrants and crime, however in the long run it causes many problems in a society, not just limited to crime but including many other social and economic problems. This is supported by Tim Pool's conclusion after his investigation of Sweden: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0p7Oyvql9s
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.
can someone tell me what the fuck is wrong with my government
PLEASE WHY IS THIS HAPPENING
PLEASE WHY IS THIS HAPPENING
Shani pls bomb spicer ok thanks
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
Since we're playing that game... i've lived in Bavaria most of my life, i was born here and grew up here, went to school and currently work and live here.
Certainly my observational evidence should outweigh yours?
But i don't care that much about observational evidence, so lets do this the proper way.
Lets look at history first..
immigration didn't begin in the 80s, but in the 60s.
Germany was more unstable when the RAF and the RZ were still around, posing a big threat to internal security: Not immigrants were the cause, but far-left terrorists - most of them native Germans.
islamist terror is a joke compared to what happened here in the 70s and 80s. They carried out over 30 terrorist attacks in a single year.
Crime per capita was at its highest around 1993, long after the huge wave of guest-worker immigrants came to Germany.
i'll always trust statistics over what i see, because i can't possibly see the whole picture with my own eyes, due to the scope of the issue. Statistics are a way to take a glimps at the bigger picture - maybe the only way.
even if i see one person being raped by refugees, or 100 emotional articles about raping refugees, that doesn't mean that they're a strong enough force to make Germany as a whole unstable.
The problem is scope insensitivity: People really suck when it comes to big numbers.
Even 100.000 drug dealing criminal refugees aren't enough to make a country of 80.000.000 unstable. They're still outnumbered one to 800.
never forgetti, moms sticketti
Sweden isn't experiencing a "rape crisis" due to refugees/immigrants, it's related to how Sweden rather uniquely classifies rape cases. The right-wing often misguidedly use them as an example of immigrants raping everybody.
Stick Man memes are some high quality keks though
Stick Man memes are some high quality keks though
need you to bomb someone for me thanksMilkshake wrote:
wait what
he's stupid and he needs to just go in a hole
His name is spicer okay thanks
Literally just type in spicer he's the laugh of google rn
Sean forgot he had to affect the pretense that the holohoax was real.
"holohoax" topkek
WW2 was a hoax made by the US government in order to brainwash people who were too intelligent to fall for their other tricks!
Edit: you let ITT fall all the way to the second page you fucking heretics
Edit: you let ITT fall all the way to the second page you fucking heretics
and it will go down soon enough one more time
till political shit ends xD
till political shit ends xD
I mean whatever floats your boat. You're the 33 year old ponylover here who spends an hour bringing down a thread, so keep doing whatever you think is the best.
Who deleted my rename itt2
I mean, at 21:27 in almost night i can do whatever the fuck i want to make my bedtime fun ;]
tru, 134 pages left for me to draw this thread down into oblivion
even if you rule over this forum, you'll still only rule over a pile of shit
OT is not a osu!forumRailey2 wrote:
even if you rule over this forum, you'll still only rule over a pile of shit
And I am just having fun, that's all
For autistic people who see problem with their own lack of interest in wide area of things - yes.Milkshake wrote:
33 and MLP seems like a problem.
I don't even care lul.
True
Yes i can be your daddy
hey daddy
oh yeah
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia means fear of long words.