forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
56,167
It is for me.
I just feel like a lot of alt-right politics are generally based on "feels" instead of actual statistics. Like you said, you can only really find anecdotal evidence, which shouldn't mean much when it comes to policy making. The real world often doesn't match expectations. I think most people would assume immigrants commit more crime, but if data repeatedly shows that they don't, then that's just a fact that people will have to accept. Statistics are the most important thing when it comes to policymaking outside of a simple race to get the most votes, which I think is something that should be avoided in a proper democracy.B1rd wrote:
I have founds lots and lots of anecdotal evidence, women being raped multiple times in different occasions, Rotherham, people working with new immigrants and giving account of how violent they, "no-go zones" where police are too afraid to patrol, etc. It's just hard to find 'official' statistics that give a link, because of reasons like: the studies are hidden behind paywalls, the evidence going against the official agenda. You know that the study you cited was made with the agenda of 'dispelling myths' about immigration and crime. Hardly unbiased. I mean it is somewhat more plausible that people from Mexico aren't that bad, but how can you really think that people from hardcore Muslim countries, countries with a completely different culture, with a low IQ, lots of human rights abuses, most of whom aren't even literate in their own language, do you really think these people would be an boon to Western countries?
I'm talking about communism because you seem intent on unfairly labeling Nazism as the worst political ideology. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistency of your position. Of course communism is violent, it's not like 100% will voluntarily hand over their property to the state. As I've already said, you can call lots of political ideologies violent. But instead of using "directly incites violence" as a basis for why it Nazism should be excluded from free-speech, you've basically shifted the goalposts and now you're saying "I think it's bad, therefore it should be excluded". That's not how free speech works, you combat words with words, and violence with violence. Your reasoning is little different from Antifa, who because they label Milo or Richard Spencer as 'nazis', gives them justification to use violence to stop them talking.
I think Islam is violent, and I think that people who advocate for unrestricted Muslim immigration are arguing for something that will cause violence and disorder in our society. Does that give me justification to use violence against anyone arguing for immigration?
I also don't think I've ever said Nazism is the "worst" political ideology. There are definitely arguments to be made for it, but frankly I don't want to bother making them. I don't particularly care if Nazism is "the worst" or not, but I can definitely identify it as something that doesn't belong in society.
Directly inciting violence IS grounds for removing free speech of spreading ideology. I'm happy to say the same thing about gulag-denying Stalinists- they shouldn't be allowed a public platform either, because they're spreading dangerous shit that doesn't do anything good for society.
Antifa are different because they're vigilantes who use physical violence (attacking people) as opposed to the state properly dealing with them via things like warnings and, if necessary, jail. You can feel free to consider intervention by the state as "violence", but I feel like you're just arguing semantics at that point. Most people see the difference between people getting attacked in the streets for existing, and people being arrested for making a Nazi speech. It's a really clear contrast that you'd probably understand better if you were in Europe.
Also I read a really cool reddit post about Islam that explains how it doesn't quite advocate violence in a way that you'd expect. I haven't verified anything here though, because frankly Islam isn't interesting to me, but feel free to check it out if you want.
https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuesti ... n/ddbrmny/
Your last argument is flawed because that'd be an indirect cause of violence (Muslims coming into the country leading to more violence, which isn't even necessarily true) as opposed to a direct one (i.e. importing radical extremist muslims that want to bomb people). Vetting exists for a reason, and America's has presumably been one of the best in the world. Getting into America isn't easy.
That would be such a Fuz thoughFuZ wrote:
muslims should be removed from earth
I've seen this show up a lot lately in different contexts. I have to wonder who you're looking at in the alt-right that makes you feel this way, because you'll inevitably find people that place emotion over reason under any banner, typically being very loud, too.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I just feel like a lot of alt-right politics are generally based on "feels" instead of actual statistics.
I think the problem with "actual statistics" is that they are skewed very easily to fit a narrative. Properly informing yourself is a challenge nowadays since you can look up one thing and then find something else calling bullshit on it within the hour. It's easier to just settle with a comfortable conclusion than a hard look at the facts, especially when most sources won't even offer the latter.
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
The real world often doesn't match expectations. I think most people would assume immigrants commit more crime, but if data repeatedly shows that they don't, then that's just a fact that people will have to accept. Statistics are the most important thing when it comes to policymaking outside of a simple race to get the most votes, which I think is something that should be avoided in a proper democracy.
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least. I was looking into gerrymandering and it's pretty infuriating how much of the electoral process has been messed up from such a simple concept.Brian OA wrote:
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.
Boy I hope so.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least.
It's especially infuriating when you look at all the major Supreme Court cases about gerrymandering or redistricting -- nearly all of the parties doing the redistricting are Republican.DaddyCoolVipper wrote:
I imagine the electoral college is probably gonna be looked at after Trump, at least. I was looking into gerrymandering and it's pretty infuriating how much of the electoral process has been messed up from such a simple concept.Brian OA wrote:
Agreed. Honestly, I'm kind of bothered there hasn't been a bigger buzz about reforming the electoral process.
There is definitely flaws in the US election system, but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college. It's not fair that California and New York dominate the elections. Voter fraud is also something that needs to be looked into.
Yes there isB1rd wrote:
but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college
If one person's vote is worth more than another's, that is profoundly undemocratic
well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeahBrian OA wrote:
Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering
I agree that the idea behind the electoral college is fine, honestly, it's just been turned into something grossly non-representative of America.B1rd wrote:
There is definitely flaws in the US election system, but there is nothing wrong with the central idea behind the electoral college. It's not fair that California and New York dominate the elections. Voter fraud is also something that needs to be looked into.
As for voter fraud: I mean, sure. From what I've heard, it isn't a big deal- and Trump quoting numbers like "If 3 million illegals hadn't voted, I would've won the majority" is full fucking retard, but yeah there should definitely always be research to see if it's a problem or not in the US.
Decent voter ID laws would also be fine. It's just a shame the ones that they've tried have disproportionately affected minorities so much (because the lawmaking itself was doing that on purpose, which is ridiculous)
Also: Both republicans and democrats partake in gerrymandering and it's despicable on both sides.
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
I've already had this debate here
I've heard that the "if 3 million illegals voted" claim has some substance. Don't just write something off without evidence.
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.
Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.Raspberriel wrote:
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
I mean I don't really know jack shit about this so I'm just assuming everyone does it when they get the chance, and even then, my issue would be that this is a thing you can do at all, regardless of political affiliation.Raspberriel wrote:
well if the party doing it routinely accuses the other of rigging elections, then yeahBrian OA wrote:
Does it matter who's doing the gerrymandering
No, we had this debate before. And at that same debate, I said I didn't worship the Democrats as infallible, so nice try.B1rd wrote:
I've heard that the "if 3 million illegals voted" claim has some substance. Don't just write something off without evidence.
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.Raspberriel wrote:
okay, gonna sit this one out
I've already had this debate here
Massively misrepresenting my argument. I'm completely fine with proper voter ID laws. The ones they tried to push disproportionately *targeted*, not affected, black voters (and minorities in general I assume). It got shot down in a federal court for racial discrimination. They essentially wanted to make it illegal to use the kinds of IDs that black people generally use, while doing nothing about the IDs that white people use.B1rd wrote:
And really, it's not the Republican's fault that one or two extra steps required to vote disproportionately affects the Democrat's voter base. I hear that rain disproportionately affects minorities' chances of voting as well. I don't think that the Republicans wouldn't use dirty tricks to get more votes, but I don't think that the Democrats wouldn't try and get illegals and dead people to vote for them either. Preventing manipulation and vote tampering is quite an important thing. I hope that electronic voting machines will stop being used.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/f ... -news&_r=0
@Mahogany
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
1 for horsesKisses wrote:
@Mahogany
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
2 for unicorns
so at 3 for ponies
Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders
thisZain Sugieres wrote:
Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders
2 Years ago I think was the first time so I'd have been 16, but it only really became a regular thing in the past 12 months.Kisses wrote:
@Mahogany
At what age did you first jack off to a picture of a pony?
Says the person who's decided to permanently sit out from conversing with me when I present my evidence why he's always wrong.B1rd wrote:
Seems convenient that you decide to sit out when I present evidence that the Democratic party aren't the saints you make them out to be.
friendly reminder that you don't have to identify your gender in a binary mannerZain Sugieres wrote:
Friendly reminder there are only 2 genders
We aren't amoebas, we don't fucking commit binary fission.Mahogany wrote:
friendly reminder that you don't have to identify your gender in a binary manner
I don't understand this at all. Last time I checked I had a swinging dong down there which makes it kinda hard to identify myself a woman or agender or a fox. Gender is a social construct idea isn't solid aswell, as you're a solid homo if you aren't content with the gender your sex has given to you, and should go out of the closet like the faggot you are. Not talking about you, but anyone in general.
When has identifying as a nonbinary gender ever hurt anyone
Biologically you're a dude, but you might not feel 100% a dude and want to identify in a nonbinary manner. And that's totally cool.Erlkonig wrote:
I checked I had a swinging dong down there which makes it kinda hard to identify myself a woman or agender or a fox.
But who is to say what makes one a dude or not, or even what 100% dude/dudette entails?
I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not
thats fucking gayKisses wrote:
I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not
also biologically im a frail man but mentally im a beautiful butterfly
That's up to that specific personBrian OA wrote:
But who is to say what makes one a dude or not, or even what 100% dude/dudette entails?
If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.
Yeah last time you didn't check you got pretty butthurt lolKisses wrote:
I just want to know whether someone has a penis or not
Pedophiles need mental help.Blitzfrog wrote:
If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.
Blitzfrog wrote:
If you accept gays, you should accept pedophiles too. Just a heads up, they deserve freedom too.
lol wrote:
fuck off blitzfrog
But pedophiles are a sexual orientation too. Tell me you guys don't like lolis