Ludeon Forums

I'm curious why you haven't immigrated to europe, and how many of your friends have....genuinely curious.

Then again, attitudes are changing : I wonder if perhaps lack of mental health services may indeed be a glaring weakness in the system : refugees who go through nasty crap are not stable, similar to a colonist suffering from several family deaths always burning down the colony.

... This is certainly something to consider.

EDIT : for the record, this was snipped and moved from another post somewhere else, where someone spoke about being in syria and not being able to buy rimworld due to syria being at war, or something.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 08, 2017, 05:15:23 AM
I'm curious why you haven't immigrated to europe, and how many of your friends have....genuinely curious.

There is a mass immigration nowdays towards Europe. It's overflowing and most countries are not prepared from it. Europe is in time of trying to figure out how to help those people and not heavily damage Europe in process(in various ways) So it's not like you can just come and be greeted happily. Many countries and people are extremely against accepting people from muslim countries.
On top of that since the immigrations began, terrorist attacks by ISIS has sky rocked in Europe which leads to people being more and more opposite(or afraid) to accept immigrants.
Many goverments are stugling cos parties which lean towards nationalism are starting getting much more support.
Europe is in pretty shaky political state. Immigrating from countries like Syria, leaving your home etc. must not be easy in first place, and on top of that even when you immigrate you will not receive a warm welcome. Accidents of racism and violence towards muslim people are getting higher and higher(and never were on low level to begin with).

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 08, 2017, 05:15:23 AM
I'm curious why you haven't immigrated to europe, and how many of your friends have....genuinely curious.

You don't want to be a refugee in Europe right now. General tolerance for immigration in the EU has never been lower (people's attitudes, not the rules) and right-wing populism has been on the rise all over since the turn of the century. Marie Le Pen, Geert Wilders, UKIP and my own personal bugbear, DF (Danish right wing party) are all doing their best to convince their populace that every single immigrant only comes here to get benefits and commit crimes.

And I didn't even mention the boatloads of (sometimes illegal, sometimes not) refugees that have drowned in the mediterranean sea during the war in Syria because some countries flat out refuse to deal with them.

Europe has been very welcoming before the crisis, now they've become hypocrites who stopped decrying pushing immigrants away.

Honestly there's a whole lot of issues going on, but it's better than Syria if you're under threat. Last I recall the govt liberated Aleppo not to mention if you can afford electricity and internet you've probably got it pretty good there.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 08, 2017, 05:15:23 AM
I'm curious why you haven't immigrated to europe, and how many of your friends have....genuinely curious.

It's still your home that you're leaving, and with the migration flood coming to Europe isn't a guaranteed better life.

Furthermore, emigration is both extremely dangerous and expensive, moreso for every family member you bring with you.

It's directly analogous to when people ask why the poor don't move out of ghettos/slums.  What, you thought it was free, or something?!

Immigration crisis was made worse by 1 : not trying to make immigration possible into MUSLIM countries : iran, saudi arabia, and other places are economically well, and more culturally meshing, yet they want to send them into Europe, which is extremely different. And 2 : The lack of documentation or regulation has CAUSED the outright HATRED of Muslim population by many : if they just took time to get their ducks in a row, and refuse to let in idiots without documents, much of the problems would of been prevented.

I think if 1 : iran and other places took immigrants, and 2 : we executed, deported, or otherwise dealt with people who rape, terrorize, or do other activities, it would be better on the global scheme of things.

....Course, people say if you advocate for executing rapist immigrants, that you are Islamophobic : I think saying so is an insult to Islam, as its saying Islam is all about rape.

But no, I'm for executing all rapists be them muslim, christians, jewish, athiest, or whathaveyou, long as its proven, and not within a marriage (rapes damages are proportional inverse to the level of intimacy wanted with the person entirely)

Beyond that theres the whole issue of the conflict with israel, which both sides have problems. major problems.

But I still think immigrants should stay in the muslim world : the core reasoning because of the worry is because the worry of "taqiya" : Granted, the ISIS bombing MIGHT be isolated incidents, but a LOT of people think its a ploy from the muslim world to invade Europe through non-resisted means. Kinda sucks, but its true that this isn't an uncommon thought : and considering no migrants are sent to muslim countries, typically speaking, this only intensifies this theory being accepted by people.

I really don't want to think such thing, but considering such texts and muslim laws exists, it makes people err on the side of caution : which unfortunately, means xenophobia, and being on guard against them.

Quote from: Bozobub on June 09, 2017, 03:01:28 PM
Furthermore, emigration is both extremely dangerous and expensive

its a basic risk assessment, what is worse, immigrating there, or risking mortar fire. A shitty situation yes, but thats the decision.

Lastly, I want to say, I feel bad for sihks : these people aren't muslim, but LOOK muslim, are awesome people, and get hate meant for muslims far too much.

(pssst, they have to go though ISIS to get to Iran, ISIS might not have strongholds anymore, but crossing that lawless desert right now with all the warlords infighting? good luck)

(And SA just declared pretty much-not-war on Yemen *similar attitude as Syrians. Just cause Saudi Arabia is Islamic doesn't mean they like the Muslims that are not the right sect.)

Saudi Arabia = Wahhabism
Wahhabism = Don't treat Shia or Sunni Muslims as people (They are considered infidels/heretics by Wahhabism).


But yes, the Middle east is not as monolithic as the above poster like to believe it to be.

Indeed : there needs to be more distinguishing between sects, discrimination is a good thing.

I JUST got off a chat with a girl from there whom stated she was muslim : and she made no complaints of treatment there. She stated she was sunni muslim, which corroborates with stuff i see from google.

Where did you hear that saudi arabia is wahhabism???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Saudi_Arabia

Or was that taqiya?

EDIT : after more reading, apparently other sources cite this, but wahabism is actually a form OF islam, with a literal interpretation : so pretty much assholes imo.

Still, official religion is sunni, and I suspect some self proclaimed sunni could classify as wahabists too.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism

http://countrystudies.us/saudi-arabia/7.htm

https://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/wahhabism-isis-and-the-saudi-connection/

is endorsed by the Royal family (House Saud), the 2 came into power off the backs of each other in the 1700s

Right, but if endorsed, why is the state religion not then sunni?...I find that odd.

I do think the no muslim policy should instead be more stringent per sect : but if this cannot be done, err on the side of caution.

It seems upon researching that shia may be the ones whom are more dangerous, but frankly I'm shakey on if this is true, or even if it matters.

Yikes, so much weirdness in this thread. I probably shouldn't post this, but I will. I'll preface this with stating that I'm not a muslim nor an academic that studies muslim culture nor do I have too much interest in these subjects necessarily, just occasionally read up on them.

First of all, although it's true that during these times racism and far-right populism in general has been on the rise (in particular, Le Pen was really worrysome), that doesn't really represent all of Europe. Sweden, Finland, Germany etc aren't that terrible. Bigger problem is that lot of these refugees are promised a paradise on earth (by the smugglers in social media who want them (refugees) to be come their clients) and it's probably terrible feeling when they find out that it's not quite what they were promised, after all the resources they spent (currency, mental stress, physical stress) to get there. And of course they seem ungrateful when they don't want to settle for, say, one room in an apartment that is shared by other refugees completely unknown to them. Then they seem ungrateful to others, yet the crucial detail is that they have all the right to be upset when they were promised much, much more than that. But it is obviously not the fault of a country that smugglers promised a paradise to them.

Secondly, as it was stated, Muslim people are not a monolith and they have diverse views on the world. Iran and Saudi Arabia, for example, are opponents of each other in general.

Thirdly, it is not quite wise to think that there is better/worse in Shia/Sunni debacle, especially when you're not part of that culture. It is true that "extremism" in relative terms is more prevalent among Shia, but to say that this is because of Shia faith in itself (instead of say, because Shia countries happen to be constantly under stress due to actions of foreign governments), you would assume that ideas create conditions, which is a big assumption. I'll just say that in general, stay away from that debate as a (presumably) western person. You simply don't know much about it and you probably won't unless you study their culture (googling for couple of hours ≠ studying).

Fourth thing: wahhabism doesn't say that Shia or Sunni cannot be treated like human. In fact, wahhabism has ties with some Sunni (for example, government of Saudi Arabia draws from wahhabism directly). Wahhabism is mostly considered controversial because it's based on Ibn Taymiyyah theology and there is one fatwa that is considered to be the most controversial, related to whenever other people of muslim faith can be killed. This particular fatwa likely came to be because he observed and wondered how the Mongols caused so much stress in his life (their family, when he was very young, already had to become refugees due to Mongol invasions). As mongols called themselves muslims, he could not comprehend how people who shared the same faith could do this to him (and people close to him).

Last thing: terrorists aren't stupid people, they're actually often very smart people (ISIS is an exception to this as they will allow anyone in their ranks). Limiting immigration isn't likely going to have a big impact on terrorism and domestic security (any other than ISIS terror anyway) because they already come into countries in ways that raise least amount of suspicion. Ziad Jarrah is probably one of the greatest examples of this. He was no fool and he took a lot of precaution to not raise suspicion.

Your post seems to only make refugees seem WORSE. If you are complaining about being given FREE housing when coming from a situation which REQUIRES you to become a refugee, then you are an ingrateful, bitter person : I've been homeless in the past, and it honestly seems like the refugee situation has them treated as better than most homeless in the united states. And most homeless aren't assholes (though many are mentally ill or drug addicted). But I suppose maybe this is another case for mental health.

It really doesn't matter, and frankly, I don't give a fuck is shia is the true cause of terrorism : really, I don't. But I do care that its a detectable, measurable factor which RELATES to terrorism directly or indirectly (ie, less shia, less terrorism). Besides, what else would be the cause? maybe its Europeans leniency against immigrants, I don't really know, but the cause itself doesn't matter when mitigating risk factors. Its also very insulting you insinuate that I cannot know about being shia without BEING shia : I can talk about something without ever being in the thick of it, or being on the side. If you truly believe I can't tell me why I should CARE for immigrants in the first place? After all, I'm not one, so I cant empathize with them, so screw them, right? (sarcasm)

I honestly think more countries should treat immigrants like mexico : you come illegally, you get treated like the criminal you are and deported, you come legally, you better be a benefit for the country, and you dont have a right to protest being first generation : but I guess trying to be like mexico is racist against others, unless you are mexico.

Also, your last comment is stupid, indicating we should just give up because trying something wont be important

Imagine if you say to a woman "rapists aren't dumb, your better off just going limp and spreading your legs, because it won't help fighting". That would get you lynched saying that, but somehow saying what you said is ok? Yes, obviously people might get through. Home invasions, political assassinations, child rape, and other attrocities still happen, but does this mean we leave our doors unlocked, leave political leaders without security, and let our kids talk to strangers? NO! Immigration needs to be limited to stop terrorism, at LEAST get them documented, or the risk is astronomical.

Its all about risk mitigation, and currently NO risks are being mitigated.

Its also worrying that ex muslims seem to get lynched if found out, under sharia law, meaning its very closed off, and hostile to outside opinions in some contexts. That and the belief in jihad being a way to forgive all sin inherently promotes terrorism

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 03:52:31 AM
Your post seems to only make refugees seem WORSE. [...]

Worse? Look, if I'll promise you that, at a great price and after a dangerous journey, there is a heaven out there for you and your family, and you believe me and go through hell to get there only to find that there is no paradise and it's all just shambles and what you get is "illegal immigrant" status with temporary housing... would you not be pissed off? Because I sure as hell would and I would complain. Dead bodies wash down the shores of Spain and Turkey for example. You really think people make those trips for nothing?

It's well known that the smugglers are the problem and their promises (to get them clients) are the most problematic aspect of it. And dealing with them is pretty hard. What you gonna do? Shoot the boats down on shores of Greece and Spain? Tell them to turn around with a boat that isn't supposed to make even half of that trip? And once refugees step afoot of a country, you can't anymore simply "send them back" if the government(s) of the country/countries they came from do not accept them (this would be a violation of international rights, something the West seems to admire so much culturally speaking).

What often happens is that they get into the lottery machine (at least in Finland) and they are going to live through a period of uncertainty whenever they can even legally stay in here. If they can't legally stay here, they aren't forcibly removed but basically they do not have the right to even legally work here or legally live here. Again, something that they weren't told when they were promised a heaven on earth.

If you were homeless because you went into a deal which you thought would end up with you living in a mansion and then you realized that everyone lied and you lost the little you had and had to work so much for the benefit of others only to end up homeless, then your situation was comparable. Were these the circumstances?

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 03:52:31 AM

It really doesn't matter, and frankly, I don't give a fuck is shia is the true cause of terrorism : really, I don't. But I do care that its a detectable, measurable factor which RELATES to terrorism directly or indirectly (ie, less shia, less terrorism). Besides, what else would be the cause? maybe its Europeans leniency against immigrants, I don't really know, but the cause itself doesn't matter when mitigating risk factors. [...]

"Less shia, less terrorism" logic isn't quite as simple as you think. You might as well say that, to get rid of poverty, you have to get rid of people who have bad spending habits, are unemployed etc. I mean surely bad spending habits and unemployment has a relation with poverty, so isn't it reasonable to get rid of such people? Or maybe it sounds ridiculous after all? It should at least, because it is ridiculous.

As for other causes? Well I dunno, have you ever read what Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen (majority of Yemen is Shia)? Or do you generally know that many western societies are often supporting Sunni governments while either ignoring or downright invading Shia countries (Iraq was a shia country, invaded by US despite G.W. Bush knowing very well, that Al Qaeda was not Iraq). Have you considered, that many of these people had families and relatives who are now gone thanks to these tragic events? That's the breeding ground for terrorism according to studies regarding terrorism profiling.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 03:52:31 AM
Its also very insulting you insinuate that I cannot know about being shia without BEING shia

That is not what I said. I said that nobody (wasn't directed only at you by the way, but it's ok) shouldn't take a stance on which one of them is the "more evil one" or whatever if you aren't a Muslim who lives in that culture and/or you haven't studied the topic at all (and by studying I do not mean academic studying, I mean actually taking an effort to learn these subjects by reading related literature, not just a "let me google up and decide quickly" type of thing). I got the impression that you aren't spending much time in studying these topics if Saudi Arabia wahhabism is news to you. I'm also not saying that is basic knowledge, but if you understand disagreements between Shia and Sunni, you should know about Saudi Arabia because Saudi Arabia currently plays a _huge_ role in that thing.

See, here's the thing. That's not a thing you lived in and probably not a thing you understand much about. How on earth can you think that you can pass a judgement like that as a complete outsider? It's equivalent to a scenario where a person who inherited all of his wealth from parents thinks that he knows something about the conditions that lead to homelessness and he goes on saying that homeless people are just lazy and deserve what they get. So would you feel that wealthy person would have the right to feel insulted when people point out to him, that he doesn't have any clue about homelessness?

I'm also not saying that you can't talk about Shia or Sunni. Heck, I'm talking about them ain't I? I'm saying that you shouldn't pass on a judgement like you did.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 03:52:31 AMIf you truly believe I can't tell me why I should CARE for immigrants in the first place? After all, I'm not one, so I cant empathize with them, so screw them, right? (sarcasm)

Important detail here is that there is difference between showing empathy and imposing your own worldview on others. This is a very, very important thing that hopefully some day everyone would understand. Lot of attempts to help and encourage people become rather hollow because people who present this advice don't actually show any empathy and instead they impose their worldview.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 03:52:31 AMI honestly think more countries should treat immigrants like mexico : you come illegally, you get treated like the criminal you are and deported, you come legally, you better be a benefit for the country

Works if you have a deal with the country you are deporting to. European countries aren't exactly in good terms with Syrian government (for example), so rather unsurprisingly, there is no deal like this for Syria. So if you successfully deport illegal immigrants back to Syria from Europe, you're violating international laws there unless Syria agrees (on case-by-case basis) to receive the deported person. Again, something that EU as a supposed role model of international peace, would not do. There was even a case of a person from Thailand waving a handgun in nightclub in Finland who was deported. The police offer went with him to the plane. They went to Thailand soil. At the airport, Thailand said no and the officer came back with the deported person. That's how these deportations work when you don't have an agreement.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 03:52:31 AM
Also, your last comment is stupid, indicating we should just give up because trying something wont be important

I'm saying if you want to stop terrorism, you need a better strategy to deal with it. There are many people already doing great work against radicalization. For example, Gilles Kepel has been successfully pacifying extremist groups among prisons by simply holding lectures about how Adb-al-Wahhab and Ibd Taymiyyah theology is not sound theology. Changing foreign policy also probably helps: it's not surprise that a lot of these attacks (not all, but majority) are targeted against countries that provide military aid into foreign countries (France in particular). ISIS-type terrorism however isn't meliorated by such policies, but their recruits generally are people who have low socioeconomic status and want to "ditch their past" and find meaning in life from radical organization (many of them actually regret once they join in).

Closing borders, however, is not a solid plan against terrorism. If saying that is stupid, well, sure, I'll be the stupid guy then. But I still wish that you take proper action against terrorism if you want to do something about it. Or, alternatively if you want to deny the access to a country from refugees that come from a wartorn country, then at least be honest about it. Not saying you necessarily want that, but such vibes I often encounter when I talk to people about these subjects. If you convince them that closing borders won't help significantly if at all, they'll still just want it out of principle.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 03:52:31 AM
Imagine if you say to a woman [...]

Okay, let's just for a moment assume that you didn't misunderstand me and this is a proper analogy of what I said (it isn't though), do you really think that was necessary comparison? It costs 0,00$ to not use that analogy. Don't use it. Ever. In fact I honestly think you should just edit it out. And if you refer back to that analogy, I'll just ignore that part completely.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 03:52:31 AMbut does this mean we leave our doors unlocked, leave political leaders without security, and let our kids talk to strangers? NO! Immigration needs to be limited to stop terrorism, at LEAST get them documented, or the risk is astronomical.

See, immigration is not like an intruder and borders are not like your door, you're using very weird analogies here. But more importantly, risk of terrorism is far from "astronomical". We haven't had single incident in Finland that involves Islamic terrorism. Sweden so far has had only one or two (I think one but might be a second one I didn't take into account). The one I know claimed five lives and wounded at least over 10. For a long time  before that, the worst extremist incident in all of nordic countries was in fact the Breivik incident, which claimed 77 lives. 

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 03:52:31 AM
Its all about risk mitigation, and currently NO risks are being mitigated.

You're wrong on this. Risks are being mitigated. Countries have domestic security services which often seek out possible terrorist threats before they even come about (and successfully so) with cooperation across countries. Social policies in different countries seek to combat radicalism (in particular the ISIS type). Some countries try to remain in neutral relations with risky countries (such as Syria) to not get too much of their attention. Works of people like Gilles Kepel who seek to actively deradicalize. Integration policies for immigrants which seek to integrate them into societies (by the way, there are different paradigms on this... for example France seeks to assimilate and it hasn't gone too well, whereas Finland and Sweden aim more towards integration policies with different results mostly due to housing policies).

There's lots of work being done, you're just not seeing the forest from the trees. 

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 03:52:31 AM
Its also worrying that ex muslims seem to get lynched if found out, under sharia law, meaning its very closed off, and hostile to outside opinions in some contexts. That and the belief in jihad being a way to forgive all sin inherently promotes terrorism

Sharia law has nothing to do with this topic to be honest, immigrants don't exactly go on about installing suddenly a sharia law into a foreign country. And it wouldn't work really, since nobody would allow it. However, certain elements (such as debt legislation) can be made compatible with sharia law in some countries. And that's not really a bad thing, it doesn't hurt anyone to allow muslims to structure their finances according to their faith. It benefits them in many ways actually with integration. UK has done this so far with mortgages.

If I got promised heaven, I'd be skeptical : ever heard the expression too good to be true? The fact they get housing, and public funding at all should be too good to be true, ESPECIALLY when they break the law. Anyone who believes such fantasies of europe being heaven, and then flips when its not up to expectations deserves no sympathy : hard knox, lesson learned, be critical of amazing sounding ideas

You are trying to make me sypmathize with criminals : no. They broke a law, and they CHOSE to embark over seas with a shitty raft. Even if they get shelled out the water, that was their choice to do so. Though I admit if this is done, it would be more humane to blow the head off the smuggler, then take the refugees back with directions to LEGALLY immigrate. And if what you say about not being able to send them back is true, then yes, sink the boats : this is essentially saying "you will take immigrants and like it". And it takes a crack down. a bloody crack down, to get the point across.

I was under the impression immigrants get welfare : why work when you get welfare? Beyond that they immigrated illegally and would prospectively take jobs from others : it essentially boils down to being greedy and demanding without compensation. Its like if I attacked you after you got groceries saying "I'm hungry" and stole some of your food : I didn't buy it, nor work for it, and you SHOULD have the right to shoot me for it, if I dont back off and continue being aggressive.

If I was homeless and thought someone would put me in a mansion, id ask at what point someone drugged my drink to make me into a fucking retard : thats kinda 101 when homeless, when it sounds to good, it most certainly is.

Quoteyou have to get rid of people who have bad spending habits, are unemployed etc

Funny part is this is true : teaching good spending habits and getting people to work DOES improve the economy, and lowers poverty for the people you help.

I'm not entirely aware, no : but this has changed, with the death of a few leaders over there due to US involvement, which I'm unhappy about. I hold the policy of staying out of global stuff unless there is a VERY, VERY good reason, like isis genociding christians, muslims, athiests, and everybody. I lost no sleep over the MOAB, because isis can die in a fire, just like they burn christians in cages. 0 pity. But my point was, stay out of other crap, and dont deal with immigrants : do this and the US will be fine.

I can understand that I very will might be incorrect : perhaps sunni are indeed the ones at fault, I don't know, but looking at the ideology at least, where terrorism is endorsed, its hard to view it as good. I would have to say "well yes, they like blowing non muslims up, but they are such swell guys!"

How on earth? By examining all information I can get my hands on : I'd love to see something which invalidated the jihad usage by isis, and shia. Besides that, ISIS is ALSO genociding sunni for not being shia. So screw them : and ISIS stands for the Islamic state of iraq and SYRIA : Syria being the country most immigrants come from, who are dis proportionally LIKELY to be in isis, by that logic.

This is why many people think immigrants are just ISIS insurgents in europe : and I suspect this may turn into ww3. I only hope if it IS, that sunnis are not killed in the process when purging violent shia.

We ALL impose our world view on others, when it comes to certain things : I'm sure you wouldn't want me say, vandalizing your house, and by stopping me, you are imposing your world view : this isn't bad though.

Likewise, for america I am against syrians coming over since they are likely to be from isis : I think trump saved our bacon with his stance on immigration, and I think "immigration sanctuaries" will be hotbed bases for cartels and terrorism.

As for europe, I CAN'T force my world view over there, but I can advocate my opinion. I'm not in europe, I'm not a hacker, and I don't have drones that could bomb europe : I have no means of forcing ANYTHING there, so as for europe, NO, I am not forcing my world view : even with a gun to someones head, I could not force it.

Interesting you talk about violating international laws : the immigrants already did that. Some could argue that in itself is grounds for execution. But the point is, europe wasn't the bad guy, they didn't do anything bad, they are REACTING to a problem. You cannot expect them to be perfect when you throw a problem AT them from outside, and if that means illegally sending an illegal back, or just tossing them into the sea as an example, it basically comes down to what keeps the law most effectively. And technically speaking tossing them back to the sea would not be execution : perhaps they could become a sea faring family or some crap. Their fate is their own, and if they die from drowning or exposure, thats a risk they accepted from the start, thus the death is upon them and nobody else. And international peace only works with ENFORCEMENT. Want to know why say, russia and china are at peace? they keep each other mostly in check. And so Europe should keep syria in check, and turn the immigrants around to drown on the seas, as that was their choice : make it clear you WILL NOT accept them, and trying to get there is signing up for a death at sea. Then when its clear, you have no reason to pity.

QuoteI'm saying if you want to stop terrorism, you need a better strategy to deal with it.

I doubt this because the taqiya : whats to say these muslims are not just taught to lie better, while actually planning terrorism? Actions matter more, as in what lowers the bombings. Closed borders and removing refugees WOULD work, and europeans care more about being bombed than some foreigner refugees. So, a good decision would be to throw em all out, close the border, patrol the borders with men with guns (and shoot on sight) and then call it a day.

QuoteDon't use it. Ever. In fact I honestly think you should just edit it out.

No : you just don't like it. Its very true in comparison - elements of violation, danger, and telling to not do more extreme things because "it wont work", not to mention actual rape IS a thing : its a poetic comparison IMO. And you are telling me to stop exercising free speech. You don't HAVE to respond to it, granted, but then it only makes you look like someone hiding something, or refusing to address something.

QuoteSee, immigration is not like an intruder and borders are not like your door

They are. ILLEGAL immigrants are those who enter without permission : This is intruding (put oneself deliberately into a place or situation where one is unwelcome or uninvited.) which makes them an intruder. The border is an entrance to a country, as is a door. The intruder is going through the entrance. How in gods name does this not fit? I can understand if this is a language barrier issue, but it is literally speaking quite apt : the only difference is the border is not a literal door, but an entrance, but refugees are LITERALLY intruders. I understand terrorism is not high in many places (yet) but wasn't finland very aggressive about immigrants? This might be why..

Thats not mitigating the risk enough : mitigating enough would be executing any immigrant who rapes, or kills anyone, and asking for papers on people. I think it should be 100% legal to kill an immigrant if they murder, rape, or child molest : kill them on the spot, and as long as you are right, you walk free.  Also I do not trust an immam to solve anything, because taqiya is a thing : what if hes radicalizing them more, but vocalizing the radicalization less? Perhaps its not true, but this is a terrible problem with islam, particularly shia : its hard to REALLY trust, because of laws in place in the "faith".

Sharia law is EXTREMELY relivant, as its effectively a way to hijack culture and law : if ever its allowed over the country its in, then muslims are effectively taking control : and this should not be allowed, as it is a EUROPEAN country, and not islamic. Even the financial part can hurt it : it can give them an unfair advantage in law, and tell everyone they can be treated DIFFERENT from others : and this IS racist. It should not be allowed, and if they want that, find an Islamic country, or screw off : its like black people asking for different standards than whites : its racist

Besides this , one final, IMPORTANT note, is ISIS is involved with syria pretty heavily isn't it? its hard to tell, since its such a mess, but ISIS does have syria in the name : And they take credit for bombings in Europe. This should be enough proof for a declairation of war, and removal of ALL immigrants, wars have been started under FAR less : but I figure ww3 isn't far off.

At VERY least, you need to remove immigrants till you are SURE you can filter out terrorists. If you cant, err on the side of caution and have NONE.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 03:33:34 PM
If I got promised heaven, I'd be skeptical : ever heard the expression too good to be true?

Not how it works, since we already assume that you did buy into it. Sorry, not every human being is perfect, especially during times of despair. For example many "natural product" scams are targeted towards people who have illnesses which conventional medicine cannot cure and they sell really well to those people. You can't just assume that people are perfect at all times and pass conviction on their actions based on this assumption.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 03:33:34 PMYou are trying to make me sypmathize with criminals : no. They broke a law, and they CHOSE to embark over seas with a shitty raft. Even if they get shelled out the water, that was their choice to do so.

You know what? I'll just leave this conversation. Clearly you cannot talk about these issues seriously and you are heavily biased against refugees. I guess I'm disappointed but not surprised. Looking at the rest of your post, this impression just strengthens.

QuoteNot how it works, since we already assume that you did buy into it. Sorry, not every human being is perfect, especially during times of despair. For example many "natural product" scams are targeted towards people who have illnesses which conventional medicine cannot cure and they sell really well to those people. You can't just assume that people are perfect at all times and pass conviction on their actions based on this assumption.

I can see SOME validation to this : its easier to be conned, which is why ALL of us should be skeptical of EVERYTHING. And I think allowing people to fail is a necessary evil to reinforce the idea of being skeptical. Rather than rioting, they could spread the word of "how awful Europe is, giving free housing and letting men off of rape charges".

I don't assume people are perfect, but people should suffer consequences for poor judgement.

Quoteheavily biased against refugees ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Fixed that for ya mate.

Immigrants aren't your own nation's citizens. It's more or less an invasion if they decide to squat on Govt land. But honestly the thing is Europe had pretty open policies and narratives of letting them stay, running most of the world organization meant to prevent war, and aid those in need.

Essentially a bunch of white people got together said they'd help make the world a better place, and now the world comes to their door step.

Just like giving a handout to a hobo, Europe is reluctant, but feels obliged to help. Opinions are changing turning more conservative in response, but this is seen all the time in the USA where conservative parents, and idealistic liberal children at odds in the political spectrums.

One hoards resources, the other wants to hand them out but there's not enough to give unless it's somehow produced.

Feeding and housing immigrants should be a given, refugee camps can do that. But giving a social and economical lifestyle isn't practical. IMO feeding and housing is only as good as preventing massive crime from starving desperate people. They ought to have their own nation/lands. And that's what Israel is for. The creation of a new land for immigrants.

its funny you call israel a nation of immigrants : do you mean the jews, whom typically immigrate everywhere FROM israel and hold dual citizenships in many places? Or muslims who wish to destroy israel and the jews by having open borders, and immigrating there?

So are you guys even European? Because it sounds like you ain't.

It sounds like I'm not because this would be hate speech, getting me arrested in Europe right?

Free speech covers hate speech too, long as you aren't actively advocating for unlawful violence.

how can refugees have it that bad, if theres LAWS against criticizing them?

Nah fam, it sounds like you're not because you're delusional about how things are in Europe. People do get prosecuted here for rape. But thanks for the confirmation — you're exclusively talking about things you have no idea of. No firsthand experience and it seems your sources are.. what, Breitbart?

People who don't have brown skin you mean? I think its pretty racist to treat people different, so this person should be put in jail for JUST as much time as a swedish man who raped a little girl.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14812/muslim-sweden-gets-40-hours-community-service-joseph-curl

This guy got community service. If there was ever a rape culture, THAT is it. The guy deserves death for his actions

In the related articles you can find countless other cases of abuse from "refugees".

http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2016/10/26/john-guandolo-anti-muslim-hate-speech-prosecutions-europe-portend-destruction-liberty-west/

Also, what is your case against brietbart? I put up information as to why I'm against immigrants, whats your issue with brietbart? If you cannot illustrate a reason WHY you dislike it, I simply will dismiss you mocking it, as should anyone with any intellectual integrity.

Also, don't call me "Fam". I am not your family, your blood, your culture, or anything. Fam is IDIOTIC to say, as its not even proper English, and I am by no means part of your family. Your very culture you live in hates people like me, so don't make such mockery.

1. You're using a source that uses Fria Tider as a source without specifying which article we're talking about and it apparently used google translate. Yeah, legit source.

2. As an European I'm bit confused: are you implying that Sweden represents that of all Europe? Sweden has the loosest immigration policy out of all of Europe, you see. Their biggest issues related to immigration is actually their failure to locate immigrants all about Sweden which resulted into suburban areas such as Malmö that, relatively speaking, is packed with immigrants.

3. You don't understand what rape culture means. It's a thesis by second-wave feminists which says that the juridic process in societies that deals with rape is often blaming the victim through myriad of ways. Later on the meaning was extended to any kind of victim blaming related to rape by anyone out there. This has nothing to do with rape culture.

4. Now now, looks like I guessed that Breitbart part right. I guessed it right, you have no clue about Europe, fam.

I can't speak for fria tider (especially with the language barrier) but honestly i fail to see how, google translate or not, you could have "rape" and "40 hours community service" both in the same article. I think thats all thats really important. Also, considering it seems they put themselves on the line facing "hate speech" possibly, I'm inclined to think they do it for truth, considering I see no other symptoms of them lying.

Sweden is very different, and they have been damaged beyond repair : I hope in ww3 they get annexed, just to repair them from their broken state. I agree, not all places are as bad, but the fact sweden is packed with immigrants, shames men for "manspreading", but then is (was?) rape capitol of the world shows something is horrendously wrong : to which many think immigrants are the cause, because honestly, what else could it be? Especially since swedish men were kind of turning into pussycats with the extreme feminism, till the rape suddenly started, and no local men defending...

Rape culture was a joke : at least, how feminists mean it : but there is indeed a culture of rape which is going on in Europe, its imported. That was my point : though I wish these women could be armed, I'd love nothing more than European women able to fill rapists full of lead to the point there no body left to mop up, just ground meat.

What exactly is your problem with brietbart? Or are you just one of those morons who teases someone for something they do with 0 evidence or data for WHY its bad?  Because those people I don't take seriously : christian, muslim, LGBT, or whatever, if you shame someone without any data or argument, you are full of shit.

As someone who actually live in Europe and in one of the richest country crossed by refugee/would be immigrant, I can confirm that Mumblemumble's diatribe are just his usual poorly researched -biased when not fallacious- arguments. Trying to justify and impose his own point of view with a disregard for actual fact as long as he believe he look right.

Anyway, we all know any topic involving the mumbling madman will devolve into explaining him how to reason correctly and what are trustworthy source of information.

So...

QuoteWhat exactly is your problem with brietbart?

They regularly publish data that are unverified, proven, demonstrated false by either reality or other real-news network, that is when they don't publish propaganda with a clear political agenda or conspiracy theories to make money from it as clickbait.

Thus it cannot be used as a reliable source of information, those who do tend to fit into three category :
(a) people with poor judgment who may survive the consequences
(b) people who want to impose their viewpoints to the gullible above
(c) people who derive fun out of their silly claim

The only reasons we even talk about this website is because of its link via Bannon to Trump, who himself have a shaky relationship with truth. Beyond that it is only a source of comedy, a tragic comedy.
http://www.cracked.com/article_24363_6-mind-boggling-ways-breitbart-fails-to-report-news.html

Which country is that? It also doesn't help if you are indeed in VERY wealthy areas, as you will naturally be AWAY from the problems common people face.

I hope you keep this crap in mind

You say "unverified" and "demonstrated false" but do not cite anything with it. Thankfully you provided a link, so I'll demolish that.

1: quotes : This is done by news companies of ALL sorts, ALL the time, cnn, fox, msnbc, ect. Ever seen a quote along the lines of "We will build America... ... ... with the help of our allies" or something similar? This means text was cut out. What matters here is NOT if stuff was cut out, but if its accurate, and in these statements,  even in the articles they mention, it seems very accurate. Worst one in the article is where obama was reported by his team to "be the closest thing to a jew" (ironic since the jewish friends I have think hes a muslim, and hate him), in that its an alleged reporting from his team, but its still that far off : and the hypothetical example with trump they list is so completely different, and just a stretch to make a poop joke about trump. Sad. At best what they accuse them of is not an exact quote in the title, because fitting the whole quote in the title would take up half the page, even though they effectively said the same thing.

2: I don't think brietbart EVER tried to say hatecrimes do not exist : this is a strawman by cracked's part, which instantly makes me think CRACKED is worthless as news. They are showing fake hate crimes are a serious problem, and they are. Its ALSO important to keep in mind hate crimes are not all equal : killing an entire family of jewish / whatever minority you want to insert, is NOTHING compared to calling someone a slur : And this is beyond the fact I think hate crimes are stupid, and you should be arrested on actions, not motiv : this is mainly used as a political tool to oppress people : for instance, what if a gay person beats up a christian for not agreeing? not a hatecrime. What if a revenge beating happens, and the person is called a faggot during it? Hatecrime. Its hypocritical to begin with, motive should not matter as much as actions : If I beat someone, me saying nasty words or not should have nothing to do with the fact I beat them up. Even southpark understood this "hate crime law, a vicious hipocracy"

But beyond my personal views, they never advocated that hate crimes don't happen. But I do agree with them that people should be allowed to say "gay, faggot, and queer", because freedom of speech is important : people are free to dislike me if I spew it everywhere, but it shouldn't be punished just for being used sparingly. not by law, and not by employers.

3 : This is more a disagreement on what constitutes "a war on women" by either party. The left often says slut shaming, promoting traditional gender roles, and chivalry is "a war on women" when really its promoting good, healthy values, good for men AND for women : Whores tend not to be very well off, traditional women tend to have more successful marriage, and chivalry allows for good women, and gentle men. However they also ignore things like islamic families doing honor killings for daughters attending a dance, even in america, FGM, treatment of women as property in other cultures, ect... meanwhile brietbart is pretty much the opposite, promoting traditional aspects for the most part, and calling out oppressive cultures, and promiscuity, which is damaging to women, and society.

Basically it depends if you think telling a woman to not be a whore is worse than treating women as property and killing them for acting like a "whore". Though really, the expression on BOTH sides is a bit sensationalist, even if one is more valid.

I also find it odd they brush over the idea of the stomping on freedom of religion, but then point on stomping on "womans rights" despite the fact women have the right to chose who they sleep with. And they mock brietbart to ignore the article of mental health risks of abortion : something I've grown to expect, being a scoffers. Scroffers cannot be taken seriously whatsover, so this has already shown to me to take this sight with a handful of salt. Infact it gets worse, as they list articles which shows DATA, and cracked responds with something along the lines of "riiiight, its SOOOOO baaaad isn't it?". Theres no scientific discussion, just being a pompous ass. And the last thing they list with drinking while pregnant, the article actually makes an interesting point, about how drugs might not be AS bad as expected. And the OP was not saying "it was healthy for her to drink alchohol for me", he was saying he was glad she drank, RATHER than abort him : and I agree, just like I'd rather get screamed at than stabbed. Doesn't mean I want people to scream at me, just means it lesser of two evils. Though I DO need to acknowlege that yes, keeping chemicals out of the system entirely IS preferred.

YES, brietbart is kinda bad at slightly clickbaitish titles, which generate clicks : but this is so common I cannot really fault them. Especially since their articles (which cracked apparently doesn't read) actually contain interesting stuff.

4 : This I find rather ironic : again, ignoring a lot of information.

They particularly ignore any mention of transexual sex offenses out there : which actually prompts an interesting question : does a transexual instantly become a cis male when commiting sexual assault?

In all seriousness, the stories are mentioned because, legally speaking, there is NO way to keep a man outside a bathroom now if he SAYS he is a woman : you say your a woman, you get in. And these are examples of that. This is why I say transgenders MUST be better defined before they get any special rights, period. Otherwise you get these abuses : hell, in seattle, a liberal bastion, one man legally went into a womans lockerrooms around little girls and couldn't be kicked out cause he said he was a woman, and he had no hormones, dress, or even shaved face. I also suspect one says a man with stubble, a dress, who calls himself a girl is a "transexual" if they are beaten up, but if they molest a child, they will call the same person a "cis male" . This is why I HATE transexuality : its so vague that anyone can warp it anyway they want. Theres no definition, its just a title thrown around, and mental abnormality.

Its even worse when they talk about religious freedom vs homosexual militancy, where buisnesses are shut down because "embrace homosexuality, OR ELSE", and people allow it. And yet they coyly talk like they have no idea what the problem is : bs. If a homosexual bakery can refuse to bake a cake with a bible quote about homosexuals having their blood upon them, then a christian bakery can refuse to make a homosexual cake. But this shows that there is indeed privilege in america for SOME groups.

5 : Considering people have called me a nazi for not thinking trump is that bad, frankly I don't give a damn. Besides some of the articles are true, jews having guns would of made ww2 less catastrophic.

Seriously, lots of others on the left make comparisons to hitler, nazis, halocaust, and MANY people said trump was pretty much hitler : so this stuff is BS, because the left is no better at all.

6 : Lol, hilary? Well first off, the cunt lost, so thats not important for right now, second, hilaries health WAS messed up, and she was going kinda insane, and collapsing on stage, and third, didn't everyone on the left obsess over donald trumps MENTAL health? Seriously, buncha damn hipocrits.

Anyway, overall, what I got was that brietbart are slightly clickbaitish in making titles, and that they aren't afraid of triggering others : neither of which makes a bad news site.

If you have anything ELSE to add, go ahead, but I still say its not that bad, and I'd rather have serious discussion of brietbart to the snarky BS of cracked anyday.

Also, if those are the 6 "most mind boggling fails" then I'm not at all disappointed in them. The many of the fails would only be fails if you are a leftist, who supports hilary, supports all the LGBT, think you should always believe "victims", ect.

....I see no reason to view them as bad, after reading all that link and viewing the articles they cite themselves : and this whole discussion makes me doubt the discussion on immigrants more, and makes me think people wish to vilify a site so NOBODY checks it out because "its junk", before letting themselves read and judge for themselves. The only part I conceed is they are a bit edgy, and are looking to aggitate people : but frankly even THIS feels like a necessary evil, when everyone is demanding safe spaces , which will inturn make them emotionally weak and feeble.

this is actually why I like crowder for instance : he advocates for fans to read brietbart, salon, huffpost, jezabel, and countless other sights with different opinions : because he doesn't want you taking his word alone.


....But I've never seen this on the left, or from illegal immigrants.

But back to your argument, I'd LOVE to hear which country you are in, even if you didn't include what city or town.

Quote from: Kegereneku on June 11, 2017, 03:50:17 AM
As someone who actually live in Europe and in one of the richest country crossed by refugee/would be immigrant, I can confirm that Mumblemumble's diatribe are just his usual poorly researched -biased when not fallacious- arguments. Trying to justify and impose his own point of view with a disregard for actual fact as long as he believe he look right.

As Kegereneku I live on the receiving end of the refugee wave.
In a town that actually houses and supports them.

It is strange for both sides, War, Religion and Terrorism aside, there is a influx of thraumatized People, elderly, children, maybe even disfigured or in other ways disabled, who do not speak the local language, have a completely different cultural background and education.

This is a logistic and bureaucratic nightmare.
People were and are put whereever there is room, the same way when a natural disaster happens.
The need food, clothes, money, papers, they need to apply for refugee status, this needs to be processed and so on ..
and that is the best case scenario where everybody behaves.
My Town has a University and two colleges, we allready have a problem with affordable living because of the student influx every year. ...
Looping Back to the "Syrian Rimworld Pirate" - Do you think a Refugee, even in Germany, has the money, time and possibility to afford a PC and Rimworld ?
This would tie into Integration .. how do you get a job in a industrial nation where education is key ?
As I happen to know someone with the National Agency for Work .. it is nearly impossible to place refugees in any job ..

Well our Grandparents build some camps a few years ago .. we could reopen and use those .. but I think the political backlash would even drown out Trumps latest Foxtrott Uniform for a week or so ..

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 10, 2017, 05:39:23 PM

Also, what is your case against brietbart? I put up information as to why I'm against immigrants, whats your issue with brietbart? If you cannot illustrate a reason WHY you dislike it, I simply will dismiss you mocking it, as should anyone with any intellectual integrity.

Disliking Breitbart follows from having functioning brains. Heck, you're defending Breitbart (later) on the account that other media is "just as bad". And generally that's true — media is pretty terrible. Which is why you shouldn't form your opinions solely on what media has to say. And that's exactly what you seemed to do.

Let's face it fam, you're just a bigot. Talking to you about these (political) topics is equal to that of simply wasting time. Just warn your opponents next time, so they'll just know to avoid talking with you altogether hopefully. That saves their time and, I guess, it saves your time.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 11, 2017, 05:59:51 AM
which instantly makes me think CRACKED is worthless as news

They never claimed to be one and yet you still learn more from them than breitbart. Which say a lot at how bad breibart is at that.
Frankly I didn't expected a single link to send you on a new diatribe over it. Then again you defend the darndest things (like how you believe in Infinite-Energy Generator on that other topic), so no real surprise.

QuoteYou say "unverified" and "demonstrated false" but do not cite anything with it.

I did, I'm not required to spoonfeed you common facts you should already know about (if you didn't know about Breitbart being accused of fake news, I suggest you start reading other website, for comparison at least)
The Cracked article was full of good sources already, but if you want other websites...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/mar/24/breitbarts-james-delingpole-says-reef-bleaching-is-fake-news-hits-peak-denial
https://trofire.com/2016/12/06/breitbarts-pizzagate-conspiracy-fake-news-inspires-real-violence/
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/10/breitbart/breitbart-gets-wrong-loretta-lynch-whitewater-clai/
http://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/
http://www.snopes.com/targets-stock-transgender-bathroom-policy/
http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/07/breitbart-duped-by-fake-news-again/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/27/1614946/-Breitbart-moves-on-to-their-next-propaganda-and-misinformation-target-Germany
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/15/breitbart-fake-news-right-trump

Just so you know:
When normal news network learn they were wrong, they recognize their errors and apologize.
Breibart just cash and make money of those buzz, and will create fake new for it. They'll publish anything that generate money or promote their political views no matter how biased. Only erasing articles (acting as if they never existed) if the public backslash is hurting their profits. (hence why you have to use internet archive to find some of their blunder)

QuoteI don't think brietbart EVER tried to say hatecrimes do not exist

Of course you don't, many of the things you defend yourself are called "hate crime" (which is a well defined things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime), yes).
Breitbart is extremely right-wing conservative with a religious streak, 80% of "hate crime" are indeed things they wish to see spread and so will routinely misrepresent how much hate crime happen, rarely ever use the term themselves when it should be used or play the victim of hate crime in an attempt to discredit it.
So this is no surprise to hear them claim hate crime hoax is "an epidemic"
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/05/02/hate-crime-hoaxes-growing-epidemic/
In reality the number of fake hate crime is too ridiculously small to call it anything. Calling it "epidemic" is pure misinformation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/18/5-charts-show-the-stubborn-persistence-of-american-hate-crime/
But reality goes against Breitbar agenda, so instead they claim it's all conspiracy.

Next,
Your own belief are pretty much misogynistic so again no bet Breitbart and its "women stay in the kitchen" mentality don't look stupid to you. They argue and fight against any step toward treating women as equal to men despite equal skills and routinely deny any sexism with a "women are just inferior" mindset, despite reality and history saying otherwise.
https://www.thecut.com/2016/11/what-steve-bannon-thinks-of-women-and-minority-groups.html

No one will be surprised to notice the text below were written by "Milo Yiannopoulos" (who since then resigned for reason I let your search for)
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/01/not-sexism-women-just-suck-interviews/
http://www.breitbart.com/milo/2016/07/07/real-war-on-women-chicks-in-combat/ (you'll notice the picture very respectful of women soldiers fighting for their country)
Note : women are allowed as front line fighter in several country ( in US at least http://time.com/4134976/pentagon-combat-women/ ) and submarines ( http://nypost.com/2017/04/19/how-the-navy-is-redesigning-submarines-to-accommodate-women/ )

Then again, we still have to teach you why some of your beliefs go against LAWS or HUMAN'S RIGHT.

Let's take this new pearl of yours

QuoteIf a homosexual bakery can refuse to bake a cake with a bible quote about homosexuals having their blood upon them, then a christian bakery can refuse to make a homosexual cake. But this shows that there is indeed privilege in america for SOME groups.

Anybody can refuse to do a job that ask to do illegal things like "promoting hate against a specific group".
Who know what the hell you mean by "homosexual cake", but it is ILLEGAL to discriminate your client based on their beliefs/race/...etc.
If a someone asked a bakery to write "I'm christian & homosexual" there is nothing illegal in it, but it would be illegal (and stupid) for a christian baker to refuse to do it.
For the same reason it is illegal for any shop/restaurant to refuse to serve a couple because they are religious, homosexual or of an ethnic group so long as no law was broken.

Your inability to understand laws that goes against your bigotry are why those threads always devolve into teaching you logic and reasons.

Quote6 : Lol, hilary? Well first off, the cunt lost

I applaud your respectful take[/sarcasm] on a Presidential candidate that was supported by more of the US population than Trump (the US Electoral College baffle a lot of us).
Speaking of hypocrisy, yours (and Breitbart) is beyond imagination. I'm from a country who had a president who fainted and had to go to the hospital during his term (I'm giving you the big hint here).

If we listened to those idiots, President who survived assassination-attempt (Theodore Roosevelt) should have been removed from office.

I don't know for others but Trump MENTAL health is seriously more important for a job as a PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA which I've been led to believe required some cogitation and common-sense.
More so than a physical one that clearly didn't keep Hillary from being far more rational than Trump.

No surprise Breibart supported the only candidate who believe their fake news. You can say a lot about News Network political bias, but as far I know they don't get their main executive hired by the candidate they made propaganda for.
This isn't because Breitbart claimed "other do smear campaign against", that they aren't doing smear campaign themselves.

QuoteBut back to your argument, I'd LOVE to hear which country you are in, even if you didn't include what city or town.

No way! Your rambling about Europeanything are bad enough, I gave you a hint and let you do some thinking

Myself I don't see any argument or interlocutor to keep discussing with.
This topic only exist because you derailed a topic, i wonder if the moderators like to see us haggle with you over the value of truth.

Quotecitations

aren't most of those people sharing theories? no worse than CNN saying trump being elected wont happen.

And as for protesters, half the fuckers of antifa are homeless who are infact given money to act like hooligans. They are just an incredibly xenophobic group, and don't talk to outsiders so finding hard documentable proof of this is difficult, but its obvious antifa, bamn, BLM, and other groups are not surfing upon their OWN money. (besides that, they are legally definable as terrorists)

Global warming still has the science out on it on if its catostrophic as people claim (and we are projected to cool down a few degrees)

And transgender bathroom law HAS lead to an increase of men dressing as women doing innapropriate things in womens bathrooms...moving on

Quotebrietbart supports hatecrime

Where? Also you are assuming context : its like if I accused you of wanting to decapitate kittens : its a baseless accusation and defamation of charecter. They don't show any indication of WANTING hate crimes to spread that is you being a paranoid fear mongerer with no basis.

Another thing about hate crime which I mentioned again : its less about hate crime and more about CRIME : if you have a white guy who gets in fights with people, he will INVARIABLY commit a hate crime if he fights anyone whos not white, straight, male, and whatever religion he is. Otherwise if he beats up a gay man, muslim, black man, transgender, or whatever, with a side of shit talking : guess what? IMMEDIATELY its a hate crime. But that has nothing to do with the guy being a violent man DOES it? Hate crime law is actually damaging for america and europe, putting people who are more innocent than the law suggests in jail for MUCH longer than is necessary. Infact your link about hate crime is redundant, because its less a reflection of "more hatred" against blacks or gays - people have hated gays and blacks since the dawn of time, these are just recordings of ENFORCEMENTS of the law, which have gone up : and some of those are from black people hurting white people, like the apes who cut a chunk out of a disabled white mans skull. But you don't want to talk about that compared to a white guy just calling a black guy a nigger, DO you?

I'm  actually very GLAD you brought up milo : he was an interesting guy, and I'm THANKFUL he tried to kill poliitical correctness, but I think he also demonstraights an interesting symptom of homosexuality : and that is that bitterness in the opposite sex is VERY easy to foster, easier than in straight men, because straight men STILL want to fuck women. But gay or lesbian, if you have any idealogy which devalues the opposite sex, it can easily lead to bitterness : which I still think milo is not (half his posts are more saying LOTS of women are negatively influence by feminism, or that men and women have REAL differences we must account for). Even the things about women on frontlines (in a sub is NOT a front line dangerous job, being a marine raiding a terrorist hideout is) has validity : we don't WANT women blown up, crippled from mortars, or have to bury them due to an IED turning a woman into a fine red mist : yet this is hateful towards woman? if I said I DID want a woman to get blown up, is that loving? Fuck off. Oh and laws and human rights are a social construct. Not to say they are bad, but they better have good reason backing them up : its legal in iran to throw homosexuals off buildings then mutilate their bodies : Do you support that buddy?

Quotehatred

I really don't think you even grasp what hatred is, nor do you grasp what Christianity is about.

The point of the analogy was its a 1 way street : commonly gay people can FORCE christians to do something they find reprehensible or shut them down : and this is not even because they cannot otherwise find a cake, this is opportunistically bullying christians, seeking out a christian bakery (they aren't that common) and intentionally fucking with them. Meanwhile if you ask for a cake about traditional family christian values, and a cake about bible quotes how homosexuals will die with their blood on their hands, this is denied : this illustrates homosexuals and christians are not treated equally and fairly on protected class grounds.

And beyond that, I think people SHOULD be able to deny service for morale reasons

If a gay person wants to deny me because I want them to do things they find morally wrong, they should have the right, as should Christians : but I guess you think only gay people should have that right? I also think its funny they won't try this with muslims at any point.

Also I understand the law, and I understand the law is shit and needs to be revised, as it causes MORE damage than it helps : honestly think for a second put yourself in the shoes of a kid whos dads bakery shut down because some homsexuals put him out of  buisness, and his kid being told this : Your fathers buisness, all his hard work, shut down because some homosexual screamed about "discrimination", even when he suggested other bakeries, and wanted to compromise on OTHER cakes : but no, father is put out of buisness, and tons of savings go down the drain  : Do you think this would make you want to respect gays, or want to lynch them like ACTUAL violence against gays?

QuoteFallacies about health

No. Even with the higher population, you cannot say that without saying obama should of not been elected, because IIRC kerry or another person got more votes too, so don't even bitch unless you want to say obama should not of been elected. But that would make you a racist in your own eyes wouldn't it?

Its less about what happens when IN office, but remember people talking about mcain, who was old but in amazing shape? that was a concern, and people were ALL over it, but you got hilary whos actually collapsing, flipping out, and looking like shes not well at all, and you say we cannot worry

Furthermore its a worry about recovery : a faint when in office, 1 time, as an isolated incident can happen, due to dehydration or  whathave you, but hilary was dragged by her staff, collapsed on stage, looked like she was hallucinating...it wasn't an isolated incident, she seemed like something BIG was wrong with her during this, or at very least like she had regular problems with health. THAT was the worry.

And let us not forget, the left obsessed over donald trumps mental health because some random "psychologist" said he seemed like he had anger issues, without any formal diagnosis, or critical issues from it.

QuoteI refuse to comment on where I am In europe

Then I'm going to assume you are tucked in a corner of a world free from the worst of immigrants : I can live in say, the bible belt of america and say america is christian, live in san francisco and say america is all about gay rights, or live in texas and say america is all about guns : Each of this points has bias, and it matters less what I think, and if theres data to back it up being right, and if its in law (like the 2nd amendment.)

So yeah, if you refuse to answer, then you saying you are unaffected is nothing more than an anecdote. It also doesn't help that, even if you got your daughter raped by immigrants last night, saying it online COULD get you arrested for hate speech over there : so I'm more likely to believe a European to American immigrant, than some guy supposedly SOMEWHERE in europe, supposedly....maybe its jordan?

And over all, I find it DISGUSTING you completely ignore any of brietbarts studies or evidence for any of the stuff listed in the cracked article, yet call them awful : You want to just ignore any science that brietbart cites, cause brietbart. Its actually a sickening habit, where people can hear cold hard proof of something, and reject it outright because "well, its not CNN saying it, so its probably fake". Why not examine the study itself?

Breitbart has a bad habit of using some poor circular logic sources. Like picking info from a KKK/White supremacist book that has no sources on claims as a source.

But sadly in today's age most places CNN, Fox etc. they all have their bad apples from time to time. The issue though is with the overall bias.

CNN is too liberal, and Breitbart is too conservative.

Albeit they were right about the Immigrant crisis affecting Europe. People have been saying it was inevitable for 20 years.

THAT I can actually understand beta (though seriously, WHAT book did they cite? I'll judge if its KKK stuff myself...for all I know you could be talking about the bible lol. And more importantly, is the stuff cited FACTUAL? some would say "white girl bleed a lot" was a KKK book, but it was literally a list of events where black people assaulted whites in racially motivated incidents, which, strangely, WEREN'T counted as hatecrimes)

More importantly, I've seen a fluxuation along the years where news sources get better, or worse. CNN used to be not terrible, but now its bad. Fox used to be full of retractions and illogical BS, but is now not bad.

I think that this just changes with management, anchors, staff, ect : its like any company, the company is not the same as 20 years ago because 20 years ago it was different staff, making a different company : which is why I say you should read / judge each article rather than say "ew (insert news source) is a horrible news source!", or on the other end, believe a news source without any good logic behind it

This is where its tricky, and most mess up : theres BS on the right AND left, but you must be able to sniff out the bullshit where ever it is, and look for truth even if you disagree with it.

Maybe in 5 years brietbart will literally be without any citations, and will advocate for violence, and CNN will be all hard facts and hard questions : who knows, but in the meantime, you must read as much as you can, and be critical of it.

In the end, ACCURACY is more important than "hate speech" or "homophobia" or "islamaphobia" or "racism" or "sexism" or any of that. Even though you might not like it, facts give no fucks about your feelings, and NO amount of feelings change FACTS.

EDIT : this is interesting..  http://www.express.co.uk/travel/articles/753542/safe-holiday-destinations-summer-2017-europe

Cant help but notice it seems places with more migrants are most dangerous...or is that just me?

Allowing migrants in suggests a nation doesn't have strong cultures inside. This means lax family values. And hence no teaching children morality. In the nations that allow migrants inside mostly Western nations like the USA there is no family culture, and no unity.

In cultures with 0% migration like Japan. The culture is INCREDIBLY strong and there is practically no crime. You can leave your wallet outside in Japan and no one will steal the money.

The legal (Most illegals are in two groups Expired Visa (Decent folk), and Drug Warlords(Murderers and sex traffickers)) immigrants are RARELY the major source of crime. But their CHILDREN have very high chances of causing trouble compared to their parents. Though in the USA it's a land of immigrants. The parents from say England come over are very good people looking to save the lives of their children, and then those kids grow up join a gang, and cause trouble.

Of course there are demographics showing that ghettos are where like 9x of the crime happens compared to any other region. Mostly drug offenses. While some do argue that these are only the people that are caught because only Ghettos get screened for crime.

Most of what I'm talking about came from listening to Secular Talk or TYT, and I'm too lazy to verify every talking point. I def know not all their sources are correct, and they are biased, but it's easy enough to compare native vs immigrant crime rates of any nation. Generally if you give up everything to save your life in a new land you play by the rules. But those raised in gangs or ghettos as most immigrants stay in due to poverty will end up in terrible demographics and promote crime. Most exceptions to this are in the Asian/Indian/Jewish communities, though it all comes back to culture and strong family values. And after one or two generations they've left the ghetto for good. Making our middle and upper classes.

So far, it looks like everyone has mostly been keeping a level head.  (No, I haven't read every word on here, but at a glance it looks decent enough.)  Thank you for that.  This is from me speaking as a forum moderator, a forum member, an individual who lives in a city that intentionally takes in and shelters thousands of refugees (tens of thousands?), and as a health care provider who is actively seeking to provide services for refugees who have virtually no money to put towards their own health care.

Again, thank you for keeping this basically level-headed.  This is a very intense topic for some, and I ask that you continue to keep this thread level-headed and consider that refugees/family/friends are a part of our virtual community.  This isn't academic or of intellectual curiosity for them - it's real life.  Please continue to treat this discussion as such.

Honestly, it's quite rare to find an online community of this quality, which is why I continue to be a part of it.  Thank you, RimWorld community - you're one in a million!  :D

I admit its why I like the rimworld community as much as I do milon.

Its kind of interesting, I suspect its BECAUSE rimworld as a game demands a certain level of maturity, and nobody without it would be really interested in the game to begin with. Some might say this is a bad thing, excluding others, but I think its VERY good : especially as I have some extremely controversial viewpoints, and can express them here safely. Especially when now, Facebook for instance is cooperating with Pakistan in investigations of homosexual posts, posts which are blasphemous, which is leading to the death penalty.. essentially they have blood on their hands, and despite supporting gay rights are allowing killing of homosexuals overseas. Facebook is now an accessory to murder, in my opinion, or at LEAST has blood on their hands.
http://www.alternet.org/world/coming-out-facebook-may-soon-be-death-sentence-saudi-arabia
https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/13/man-in-pakistan-sentenced-to-death-for-blasphemous-facebook-comments/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKf_GR79ZTA
Its rather ironic, because, despite being anti LGBT, I find facebooks willingness to do that abhorent, but I suppose its because I think actions speak louder than words,  and despite my disagreement, they deserve chances at redemption, rather than a cruel death. Ideals should stand on their own merits, all of which to be openly criticized, and "winners" picked after carefully examining all information.

EVERYONE should be able to spread ideas, and EVERYONE should be able to criticize EVERY IDEA. Even as a christian, PLEASE, criticize as much as you want the bible and god, but allow me to do the same for anything else : And inversely, defend your point with logical discussion, and expect me to defend my points.

--------------

Beta, you make an interesting point : I suspect this honestly might even be a playing factor in black communities in the US, due to them FEELING like they do not belong : and this is one of the reasons I'm a nationalist, because a national identity DOES indeed help group cohesion, and those who it doesn't help are typically refusing to have a national identity. Its actually funny thinking about this, because thinking back, the black people who have always been the most likable / sociable that I have met have NOT identified as black as the PRIMARY thing about them, and 2, did not have an immense amount of discontent towards whites.

I think this is a big factor : trying to focus on what makes us the same, unless something which is different is KNOWN to also be a damaging factor, and is proven to be the case : otherwise its assuming malice, and that gets us nowhere : its why BLM and other groups have worsened racial tensions, is they insist white people are horrible, racist, hateful, ect, and demand you support them / obey them, and if not, that is proof you are a racist : and this in no way makes friends or allies, and if I'm honest, can CAUSE racism and hate towards any group : its just the way the mind works, if a group has a consistent pattern of doing something, you create a stereotype of it. And I have certainly seen racism get worse in people I know BECAUSE of such things : strangely, this even applies to the rather ironfisted LGBT policies in some cities. Point is, you CANNOT make someone accept you if you start off being rude to them for not agreeing with you.

Beyond that, as you said beta, differences which are voluntary are actually bad for cohesion and unity : this is why the military for so long had you shave your head, use the same clothes, ect, because they wanted you to be a SOLDIER in a UNIT, of other SOLDIERS : not worry about if the other guys white, black, ect, but worry about them being a soldier. The problem is, when a difference goes from involuntary (race, sex, physical build, ect) to voluntary (self expression, gender expression, cultural expression, religion expression, clothes, ect), that this can provide a problem : involuntary differences are accepted for the most part because people know it cannot be changed : no black person can choose to be white, and no woman can choose to have a penis when she has a vagina : but voluntary differences act very different : everyone knows in the end, you can choose how you act, what you talk about, dress, ect, so this difference is not just a difference, but a CHOICE to be different : which builds more division in a group potentially. Not saying people cannot make different choices, but the more different you CHOSE to be, the less cohesion you can expect within your group you are choosing to be different from, and this is critically important if you choose to be different from one of the things that unite the group. (like a group of a church going atheist, then getting alienated.)

Course, thats not even to say the japanese are wrong : racial divides do indeed cause issues with family and self identity (not so much wider spread culture), so its not necessarily a bad idea to have a group isolated to breed with / commune with its own group, but when working within a group of multi racial / ethnic groups, cohesion plays a part far more, and this is something to take into account, while left to their own devices, each group having their own segregated group is not bad for upbringing / family strength. Outside that, having SOMETHING held in common with all helps : church, patriotism, something.

As for TYTs, I cannot take them serious : wasn't that the show where some snobby bitch said she was better than everyone who criticizes her?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhwpvzc8pAE
Yeah.....I CANNOT take them serious
not that I can blame you, I was subscribed to them back in the day, but began to see their trashy double standards.

Keeping a discussion level headed is a meager consolation for the absurd amount of fallacy coming from some participants.
So many that you can't decide which one to address first or what's the problem with those people, at some point you don't bother anymore.
In any case, I'm sorry for throwing the mumbler on a different topic.

Mumble, I and others have already addressed and contradicted 90% of the stuff you rant about in previous discourse, frankly you are disappointing.
So I hope you'll understand why I think keeping on the "what's wrong with Breibart?" discussion with you would not be productive.

On this, goodbye.

keg, this is why I have issues with you, and sometimes others : I don't mind disagreements, I really don't (infact I rather enjoy them) but as much as I welcome disagreements, what you and others often resort to is just that : to accuse someone of fallacies without listing them, say sources are crap without debating why, and saying theories are true without providing evidence towards them.

If you have caught me using fallacies : point out why so it can be debated, and understood EXACTLY what you are talking about. As much as Milon HATES off topic, I gotta say I figure (sorry for speaking for you milon!) that he would prefer off topic movements to clairify understanding to conflicts / animosity on the forum.

If you have an issue with a source, such as brietbart, raise the issue directly : and conversely, allow cross examination

This is how discussion works, and when you take the approach you do, of walking off in a huff when someone doesn't side with you, then it only makes you look bad : that aside, if you REALLY believe in an idea, you should allow it to be questioned, and answer such questions : to either re-affirm a good belief, or compromise a bad belief by showing its flaws.

For instance, your views on brietbart : which for the record, you can hate as much as you want, just as much as I hate pinknews. But if you wish to express this in a public square, either prepare to 1: explain your reasoning and answer questions. Yes, this may very well mean LOTS of questions (seriously, anyone on the forum can ask me damn near anything, short of personal information) 2 : have people criticize, and disagree with your views, especially if you do not stand up to questioning, or 3 : just don't talk about it

Oh and don't play as if "you don't have time" for this : you are taking the time to look at my thread and post, yet say you don't have time to make any critical, informative posts : I welcome debate, but if you don't have time to make a well thought out post that addresses as much criticism as possible, perhaps you simply should not post? I suppose it is your right, and I cannot take it away from you, but otherwise you just look like a snarky scoofer, which is useless to a discussion.

AGAIN : I'm fully willing to have discussions with people, and hear opinions I'm foriegn to / do not agree with, but you must make a case, and defend against criticism if you want to be taken serious : I had one woman on here literally advocate for bestiality on here, and she was more convincing in her argument BECAUSE she actually accepted and tried to address criticisms : and thats a bit sad.

I don't WANT to believe europe is being besieged from within, but don't just say "mumble uses fallacy and brietbart is bad", and try and walk out on the debate there : its no better than antifa spouting crap about "Racist sexist antiqueer, bigots are not welcome here", and then refusing to even address where they say the racism, sexism, antiqueer, or bigotry allegedly was. If you indeed see something, point it out and explain it : ANYONE can accuse ANYONE of ANYTHING, but proving is where the rubber hits the road : Explain where my fallacy is and counter at least HALF my points on brietbart, and then I will take you serious alright?

Also, one VERY important thing to keep in mind : yes, I am not in Europe, but Europe is also HIGHLY anti free speech at the moment. One guy in Scotland got arrested for making his girlfriends dog jump around when he said "gas the jews" : about as serious as a fart joke and he even admitted nazis were "the least cute thing in the world". And in other places theres a massive crack down on anti muslim, anti immigrant rhetoric. This in turn means voices are SILENCED in Europe, so I wish to speak for the ones SCARED to speak there. Beyond that, if anyone can voice anti christian, anti white, anti straight opinions, its completely within my right to voice any opinions I have or else I do not have the same rights as others, which is FAR worse an issue than any anti xyz talk.

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 15, 2017, 09:18:28 PM
This is how discussion works, and when you take the approach you do, of walking off in a huff when someone doesn't side with you, then it only makes you look bad

See, if people stop talking to you, it's not categorically because you don't side with them. I've spent plenty of my time talking and arguing with people who, for example, deny that holocaust ever happened. I've went through all the gritty details. When for example that one person is brought up who tried to claim that there had to be more chemical traces than there actually were (of zyklon b), I asked a friend who actually studies chemistry about the topic and got all the answers. When the alleged "human made soaps" were brought up, I checked all the sources and found out that actually nobody ever claimed that they were mass produced and there were evidence that such a project did exist until it was scrapped for not being economically feasible. I've spent countless of hours on that kind of stuff.

The result? There's always something else, a loophole or whatever, that the arguing person will use to just continue without even giving a slightest thought to the idea that maybe if there are dozens of debunked claims, the roots of these claims might not be so honest as one would imagine.

Now, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has observed such behavior (in fact, I wouldn't even say that I'd be personally immune to behaving in such a way). And knowing that, the logical conclusion is to start looking for "warning signs" of such behavior and just stop it there. There's no reason to continue the discussion that will never be productive.

For me, personally, reading Breitbart is a warning sign. It's a media outlet that is directly meant to indoctrinate its readers with ideas, that is, to transform these ideas into readers without ever making them wonder why they should believe into them. They do so by presenting shoddy evidence of crazy (and to some folk, appealing) ideas that are central to the ideology that they're trying to spread. It's really common behavior these days with media in general actually (it's just that Breitbart doesn't  really have any other kind of substance to begin with). And I personally am not interested in dissecting this any further to you. If you're quoting journals which openly admit that their source is a source that they have to use google translate to understand to begin with, then there's something very, very wrong. It's not that google translate is bad, it's just that it occasionally gets things wrong. And to trust a _whole article_ that gets translated? Yikes.

As I said, mis translating something about community service and rape is nearly impossible : and this immense BIAS on the left its a major problem : just today I had people saying at a fair that CNN was always right, and fox is always wrong : but this is being in an echo chamber, refusing to check other sources

Beyond that, LGBT get to show crap like a gay jesus fish with dick fish swimming into its asshole, why can't I do the same with mohammad in europe, without being jailed / beheaded?

Especially since theres so many muslims in jail, and they use jail to convert people. One guy actually DIED in jail after he was jailed for a YEAR due to putting bacon on a mosques door step.

Islam is incredibly hostile, and the issues with jail conversion, rape, molestation, removal of free speech, ect, is pretty much sharia law in practice, even if its not formally in law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weGxSWl5oA8

Oh also its not racism : its a bad, horribly flawed ideology. People criticize Christianity with no end, but call it "Islamophobia" if its islam. This isn't equal rights, this is demanding superiority while playing the victim, and this is INTOLERABLE if the people doing it themselves are brutal and violent, and causing damage.

Political correctness needs to die before it ends up killing more people.

You have a bad case of egocentrism here mumble,
I only answered you more often because you are wrong more often. You wall of text don't help, I told you long ago you could be more concise.

Yes I do have some time for these discussions (but clearly less than you), but you are not worth much of my time anymore, in part because we have to explain you over and over again all sort of things that you keep "forgetting", pretending you weren't proven wrong when you were, asking for better proof when you don't post better one yourself...etc
ex: your fallacy? explained to you in others topics that you should remembers.
Your fallacy here (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=33476.msg343375#msg343375): at this point you were not my interlocutor anymore, I was answering other people (whom I believe intelligent enough to see what I mean)
The topic of Breitbart? -> Your original query have been answered, answering 80% of that post would be even more out of topic than this.
No need to tell us you do research, we know but are skeptical about you doing it right.

The irony ?
The "Political correctness" you fight so much, is one of the reasons you (mumble) get to share your various form of bigotry, prejudice, bad propaganda and poorly researched belief, all without being banned or mocked.
You are a minority, and doing everything you claim to fight against, you are always claiming to be persecuted when you aren't, you are always asking for privilege geared against sub-group you don't like.

In conclusion Mumble, I took time to offer you more explanation about why I should stop bothering with you, in return please refrain from assuming my reasons.

Again, you are not entitled to have answers.
And don't believe yourself to be right just because people don't have the time (or want) to explain how wrong you are.

Lets be VERY clear on your "position" keg.

You say I'm "ego centrist" which is a personal attack irrelevant to debate : a ego centrist could still be 100% correct, its off topic to call me it, and says NOTHING for the topic.

You say you "don't have time" to debate, but continue making off topic posts about criticisms of me so much as believing brietbart has any merit (Its not even in my main news consumption...) or that I'm egocentric. You still aren't making any real criticism on the debate, you are attacking THE lowest hanged fruit, and ignoring core arguments.

You do not address rape and molestation rates in Germany and Sweden (which highly correlate to immigrants, as well as reports showing its overwhelmingly immigrants)

You do not address the political correctness giving islam an advantage in these societies

You do not address connections between immigrants and ISIS

You call be a a bigot, and prejudice, without even knowing what the damn words mean.

HERE, let me help.

Bigot means to be intolerant of other opinions : and I'm tolerant of them, but I openly criticize ones that are dangerous. I'm less bigoted than antifa, BLM, and other groups, as these people actually ATTACK people they disagree with. So don't call me a bigot, you bigot. Heck, islam itself is far more bigoted, as it JAILS people who criticize it under sharia law or in some places in europe. So muslims are the bigots here.

prejudice means to pre-judge someone, without full information : and this frankly does not apply here : I am talking about GROUPS, and not explicitely pushing them on individuals. Prejudice would be saying a trump supporter is a redneck hick with a refridgerator IQ : even if you meet one, and they clearly have a higher one. (or are black : yes, black people support trump, and hate BLM, even though stating this openly would get them KILLED)

Also, you are right, I'm NOT entitled to an answer, you can continue being a dork making off topic posting, but you are contributing nothing to the discussion AT ALL.

If all you have is personal attacks and name calling, don't post anymore : I've been banned before for off topic posting, and these rules should apply to you as well, I at least TRY to make each post link into the topic. Its my topic, and I want DISCUSSION, not childish name calling or personal attacks, so stay out of my thread UNLESS you want to address core arguments which make up the bulk of my point, rather than namecall like a gradeschooler trying to shut me up.

And the far left is the extremist group of this time : antifa, BLM, Islamic aggression on many countries, and trying to divide us along race, sex, and other crap, while we ignore the takeover.

Let me be very clear on both of your positions at this point. You're both being ninnies who need to take a step back before I have to have fun passing out temp bans for attacks and harassment.

On one hand you're both right, on the other hand mumble you are literally known for kicking dust at people and crying victim to the point where the moderators more or less watch you like a hawk expecting the worst and Keg you're no stranger to twisting the knife to try and get a rise out of people. Both of you need to relax a tick, this is meant for conversations not tomfoolery and the second people start devolving into fights is when I question just how fast I can make the three clicks to temp-ban ya for a few days.

We have rules. Follow them.

the Government controls us with cereals

I know this was removed from my signature but I think its worth noting that the supreme court decision protecting "hate speech" makes a very fine distinction between the USA and everywhere else in the world

Currently in america, short of ACTUAL calls to violence (such as serious calls to "gas da jews", or whatever else idiots call for), hate speech is considered not a thing. Theres senator talks to REMOVE political correctness in universities (may it be removed, and burn in hell) talk of the stuff in europe, and talk or terrorism across the world, which up till RECENTLY (the van attack that MAYBE killed 1 person) was only Islamic for the most part.

However, in Europe, people are being JAILED for saying Islam is bad, for teaching dogs to reacts to "gas the jews" as a crude joke, and theres a legitimate fear that, despite muslims raping women and children, bombing, stabbing, and causing other elements of chaos, that people CANNOT speak out against it

This to me shows Europe is no longer part of the free world : they do not have the right to free speech, as hate speech is a severe limitation of it.

Speech is absolutely critical, and in the end, even if I called someone the most dirty things in the book, spit vile, awful words at them, they are grownups and can refute whatever I say, or ignore it : limiting it brings in a massive potential for abuses, which is why you are seeing what I believe is the start of a European genocide over there. This all started BECAUSE censorship was a massive thing, BECAUSE the voice of european people could not ring out saying "WE DO NOT WANT IMMIGRANTS", because all who try end up IN JAIL.

Imagine if a man raped your daughter, and complaining about it got you thrown in jail for hate speech : is this moral? "hate speech" is a victim-less "crime", nobody is hurt by it, and the idea that it leads to violence is subjective : I could criticize anyone, and any whacko could go out and kill them because they are mentally ill, but that is not my fault, especially if I'm intellectually honest about, which I often try to be : I try and seperate out the different types of muslims, and muslims who are modern reformists, who SPEAK IN ENGLISH in mosques, and are not involved with terror should be permitted : however, mosques which are involved in terror like the FINSBURY MOSQUE, deserve the Imam to be drawn and quartered, and the mosque forcibly taken away by the state : Eventually a country MUST put itself above the "needs" or terrorists, or the country will be destroyed.

But that is a key distinction just to keep in mind folks : in many places people like keg WOULD BE ARRESTED if they said anything like what I say : but in the USA, we have freedom, freedom which has been robbed from them. And so I take with a crate of salt anything FROM europe, because I know at the end of the day they would risk their life to speak out : and this is ridiculous, that expressing your opinion on something would put you in danger. This is why I say YES, Europe has become a bit of a hell hole, and is currently NOT free, and free speech is NOT a thing there

Beyond that, you guys should review some of the stuff from the US senate hearing on free speech : they even touch on neo nazis, KKK, and truly vile groups : but they say that despite them being disgusting, vile, horrible, awful, that they should have the RIGHT to speak out, and they should have the RIGHT to express contrary views to others : and likewise, anyone pushing ANYTHING, has the OBLIGATION to answer questions : which has been a core problem of this thread, with accusations of bigotry, racism, and other crap flying about without any logical argument : its been the main strategy of the left, and its not working : call me a racist bigot, I don't care because I know I'm not, and I know you cannot make a concise argument for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atndeX-3Ggc

Remember, diversity matters, but diversity of OPINIONS are one of THE MOST important things.

Have you ever been to Europe?

We limit free speech to protect the fundamental rights of others, whereas in the US free speech is protected to a fault - to the point where a corporations spending money is interpreted as free speech, and I'm sure pretty soon shooting people will also be just another way to voice your opinion, and thus an application of free speech.

Europe is only a hell-hole if you're a bigotted alt-right fundamentalist; for most everyone else it's pretty much the best place to be. You don't have to take my word for it...

Europeans are happier;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Happiness_Report
Note that the top 10 is consistently EU countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Europe has more press freedom (not quite the same as individual freedom of speech, but I would argue it's equally if not more important);
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-press/freedom-press-2017
Note that while Western Europe and the U.S. are both marked as 'free', if you hover over the countries involved, most of Western Europe actually has a better freedom score than the U.S. On a side note, if you're so concerned about freedom of speech, I find it concerning that you still support a president and a movement that openly insults individuals that have annoyed them, calls news it doesn't like 'fake', and actively tries to bar access for news outlets that it doesn't agree with.

Europeans enjoy more freedoms overall;
https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017
Freedom of speech is just one type of freedom. Allowing it to a fault is always going to infringe on other freedoms. Balance is king.

tldr; your rights end where those of another begin.

@mods; PLEASE, for the love of god, ban political discussions from this forum. They have no place here, and anyone with half a mind isn't going to come here to read them. If anything, they will just scare people away.

Led Zeppelin - Immigrant Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlNhD0oS5pk

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on June 26, 2017, 04:33:07 AM
We limit free speech to protect the fundamental rights of others, whereas in the US free speech is protected to a fault...

@mods; PLEASE, for the love of god, ban political discussions from this forum. They have no place here, and anyone with half a mind isn't going to come here to read them. If anything, they will just scare people away.

First of all, thank you for your excellent post Fluffy.  If we had a rep system here, I would seriously +rep you for that.  Level-headed, clear info, excellently portrayed, explained why & where you disagreed without inciting a firestorm, and provided sources to back up your claims.  Love it!

About stopping the political discussions, I don't step in as a moderator unless someone is violating our rules.  Free speech, ya know.  ;)  But we're definitely keeping an eye on this one and some folks are quite close to losing their posting privileges.

Quote from: milon on June 27, 2017, 01:48:08 PM
About stopping the political discussions, I don't step in as a moderator unless someone is violating our rules.  Free speech, ya know.  ;)  But we're definitely keeping an eye on this one and some folks are quite close to losing their posting privileges.

In case it ever gets bad, one thing you folks can do is to consider having a subsection in OT for political discussions. Personally I like the way that KVR forums did with the "Hyde Park Corner" section. It's a subsection of OT, but you can't even see it unless you are registered and you cannot post there until you have certain amount of activity in your account. The advantages probably aren't huge but at least this sort of mess stays away from more popular sections. Might cause other issues I'm not aware of (since I've never done  community management)

@ fluffy

Limiting my free speech does not protect any rights of others WHATSOEVER.


I will provide you a hypothetical scenario.

Lets say you think I was a racist bigot for attending a church, for some reason...this is your right to think so, and even if wrong, you have the right to do so

You have the right to PROTEST me going to church if you want, along with signs, any friends you want to gather, ect : this is 100% in your right

however, how does this possibly remove my right to go to church? it does not, not in the slightest.

And this is a core problem : how would it limit anyones rights EVER me talking?

And don't you find it extremely ironic that you can call me a bigoted alt right fundamentalist?

how is this better than me calling you a "mentally ill pervert" or something similar?

Its not, both are ad homin unless you explain how exactly you fit the definition : and I know nothing of your mental health or sexual proclivities so neither mentally ill nor pervert would be applicable at all, and beyond that, they are ad homin which do not pertain to the particular debate

Likewise, you call me an alt right bigoted fundamentalist : lets break this down

Alt right : a phrase coined to define the farther right movement which is further than mainstream right, particularly in America.

Particularly it means nazis, white supremacists (please note that white preservations groups and white supremacists are different) bible thumping cultists, ect.

now, I'm not a nazi (i believe in capitalism rather than socialism) and I am not a white supremacist : even looking at inteligence levels, asians boast a higher IQ than whites on average, and I think all races can have high IQ WITH a proper upbringing and diet.

So, I would not call myself alt right.

Bigoted : someone who is intolerant of other views

I am more tolerant than your countries in europe are, generally speaking : I've had debates on this very forum with women who engage in beastiality, which I find awful, but still allow them to speak without harassment. Yet Europe will ARREST people who express opinions they disagree with. Those governments are pretty objectively more bigoted.

so I wouldn't call myself bigoted, or at least less than European countries governments right now (Poland, Hungary, and others excluded)

Lastly is fundamentalist : which means strict interpretation of scripture. This might very well apply to a very small extent, as I am christian and follow the bible, but I also eat fish : so this is also wrong

In short everything you said about me is incorrect

But beyond that, you STILL removed no rights from me : so how can any of my speech remove rights, unless its via policy? Because policy is not free speech, policy is policy.

Beyond that, lets examine your stats

your happiness survey is dubious : what questions did they ask and how did they qualify it?

I've had some people argue if someone swears in my presance that its a symptom of "abuse" but I call my best friend a dumbass all the time, and he does the same for me : this said, I love being around the dude. So I would take it with a grain of salt, and beyond that, what if someone had say, their children killed in an islamic extremist bombing : are they allowed to say this makes them unhappy? this is VERY important considering what you said above, how anyone who thinks its a hell hole is a right wing bigoted fundamentalist, because it implies only fundamentalists don't like being blown up. This is important to consider.

Freedom of press is an assinine point : press is inheriently COVERED under free speech, and if you limit free speech, you ALSO limit freedom of the press. AND AGAIN, can people report that they are not free to do the press they want, if expressing that they are not free is illegal? This might indicate on paper that press is great there, but in reality its an iron fist. Remember, press is pointless if speech is silenced.

For "general freedoms", I'm not even sure what you are on about : how about specifics? what SPECIFIC freedoms does say, germany have that america does not?

In america I can carry a gun, knife, and have freedom of speech, which is 3 (maybe 2?) that germany DOES NOT have. So what does Germany have that America does not? Because I could not find information there specific to european countries freedom being higher than america : I did look at comparisons of Germany and the United States, and germany scored higher but did not explain why : and civil liberties were rated good in germany, despite freedom of speech being hampered? This Seems bias and inaccurate.

In short your articles are just a bunch of agencies DECLARING something without explaining data behind it, as far as I can see : and I don't care what the agencies opinions are, I care about hard facts.

Plus immigrant freedom should NOT be a factor in a countries freedom. Immigrant freedom is not the freedom of its citizens, its the freedom of outsiders which is 100% up to the countries discretion how they handle it.

As for your statement...

Quotetldr; your rights end where those of another begin.

Tell me where someones rights begin that I would end up limiting?

If you say "a right to not be criticized" or similar : this is not a right, and the same policy you say applies to THEM : their rights to that are stomping on MY right to speak.

Also, its sad you resort to begging for censorship : is this because you do not feel confident having a civil debate? If you feel confident, debate me on it till I am crushed, or you give up, whichever happens first.

Beyond that, do you realize the hipocracy? People say not to criticize islam to prevent bombings, but then hold europeans to another standard : jihad is normalized while fighting back against islam, or even criticizing it is vilified and made illegal

Call me a bigot but I find rape, child molestation, be headings and bombings much worse than every racial slur in the book.

I also hope we can AT LEAST agree that ww3 is not far off whatsoever, and the immigration issue is CERTAINLY a factor in aggravating it.

....Beyond THOSE, if you believe islam and immigrants ARE NOT destroying europe, then why are you against TALKING ABOUT IT to PROVE they are not a problem???

I'm bored, so let's go over this.

Quote from: mumblemumble
Limiting my free speech does not protect any rights of others WHATSOEVER.

That depends entirely on what you're saying. If you're inciting violence against or are spreading lies about someone, that will have consequences. There are numerous exceptions to the right of free speech in US jurisprudence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions) alone, all of which can be traced back to some other right being deemed more important.

Quote from: mumblemumble
I will provide you a hypothetical scenario.

Lets say you think I was a racist bigot for attending a church, for some reason...this is your right to think so, and even if wrong, you have the right to do so

You have the right to PROTEST me going to church if you want, along with signs, any friends you want to gather, ect : this is 100% in your right

however, how does this possibly remove my right to go to church? it does not, not in the slightest.

And this is a core problem : how would it limit anyones rights EVER me talking?

Are you honestly suggesting that if there was an angry mob standing in front of your church, holding signs and booing you as you went in, that this would not affect your life? At which point would you be too afraid to go to church? If you were too afraid to go, would I then be limiting your rights?

Quote from: mumblemumble
And don't you find it extremely ironic that you can call me a bigoted alt right fundamentalist?

how is this better than me calling you a "mentally ill pervert" or something similar?

Its not, both are ad homin unless you explain how exactly you fit the definition : and I know nothing of your mental health or sexual proclivities so neither mentally ill nor pervert would be applicable at all, and beyond that, they are ad homin which do not pertain to the particular debate

First off, its ad hominem. But let's not let that get in the way. Second, the main difference is that you are parotting the arguments that are made by alt-right fundamentalists. I don't see any particular reason for you to call me mentally ill or a pervert - I don't think I've done anything to deserve being put in either of those groups. You could try calling me a raving mad liberal socialist, at least that would somewhat fit the facts. On a side note, I'd like to point out that using mentall illnesses as a derogatory term is rather offensive.

Quote from: mumblemumble
Likewise, you call me an alt right bigoted fundamentalist : lets break this down

Lets!

Quote from: mumblemumble
Alt right : a phrase coined to define the farther right movement which is further than mainstream right, particularly in America.

Actually, it's a term coined to 'disguise' white nationalism with a less loaded term. It's since become fairly mainstream, and is often applied to news outlets such as Breitbart and InfoWars.

Quote from: mumblemumble
Particularly it means nazis, white supremacists (please note that white preservations groups and white supremacists are different) bible thumping cultists, ect.

now, I'm not a nazi (i believe in capitalism rather than socialism) and I am not a white supremacist : even looking at inteligence levels, asians boast a higher IQ than whites on average, and I think all races can have high IQ WITH a proper upbringing and diet.

So, I would not call myself alt right.

The ideology of national socialism (a neo-nazis in particular) has very little to do with socialism. It was in fact probably closer to capitalism (with the means of production being in private hands, and market forces driving the economy), but it's closest to fascism. White supremacy centers on the idea that whites are somehow superior to other races, and should therefore be dominant. Intelligence was often used as an excuse in the past, but many fabricated arguments are made to support this idea. Either way, you may not identify with these ideologies, but you are certainly talking their language, and using many of their arguments.

Quote from: mumblemumble
Bigoted : someone who is intolerant of other views

I am more tolerant than your countries in europe are, generally speaking : I've had debates on this very forum with women who engage in beastiality, which I find awful, but still allow them to speak without harassment. Yet Europe will ARREST people who express opinions they disagree with. Those governments are pretty objectively more bigoted.

so I wouldn't call myself bigoted, or at least less than European countries governments right now (Poland, Hungary, and others excluded)

In your example, you're already making a value judgment about someones personal life - isn't that pretty much the definition you yourself just gave? You're also making wild claims about Europe (which, by the way, is composed of a few dozen independent states, each with their own laws and customs), without any proof or substantiation. I've linked you the FreedomHouse website earlier, which tracks precisely this kind of thing. European countries did equal or better than the US on civil liberties. A point you seem to have missed, but lets get back to that later.

Quote from: mumblemumble
Lastly is fundamentalist : which means strict interpretation of scripture. This might very well apply to a very small extent, as I am christian and follow the bible, but I also eat fish : so this is also wrong

Sorry, I wasn't aware you eat fish. I take that one back.

Quote from: mumblemumble
In short everything you said about me is incorrect

Can I just mention that I never directly called you any of these things? I mentioned that only a bigotted alt-right fundamentalist would believe that Europe was a hell-hole, because frankly, sites like Breitbart (and sometimes Fox) often make it out to be - without any sources or proof, I might add. The fact that you're making these same arguments implied, to me, that you too are a member of the alt-right, or at the very least influenced by its ideas. If you look like a duck, swim like a duck, and quack like a duck, then you probably are a duck.

Quote from: mumblemumble
But beyond that, you STILL removed no rights from me : so how can any of my speech remove rights, unless its via policy? Because policy is not free speech, policy is policy.

Well argued. A duck is not a swan, a duck is a duck.

Quote from: mumblemumble
Beyond that, lets examine your stats

your happiness survey is dubious : what questions did they ask and how did they qualify it?

I know you're unfamiliar with sources and references, but wikipedia likes to use them a lot. The little numbers next to statements are links to the reference list, where you can find the original sources. Anyway, here's a link to the full report (http://worldhappiness.report/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/03/HR17.pdf).

Quote from: mumblemumble
I've had some people argue if someone swears in my presance that its a symptom of "abuse" but I call my best friend a dumbass all the time, and he does the same for me : this said, I love being around the dude.

I agree with your friend.

Quote from: mumblemumble
So I would take it with a grain of salt, and beyond that, what if someone had say, their children killed in an islamic extremist bombing : are they allowed to say this makes them unhappy?

Only after they've bought the terrorists' family some cookies.

Quote from: mumblemumble
this is VERY important considering what you said above, how anyone who thinks its a hell hole is a right wing bigoted fundamentalist, because it implies only fundamentalists don't like being blown up. This is important to consider.

It would be, had that implication made any sence whatsoever. I never made any such implication, and the fact that you do make it presumes that you believe terror attacks to be more or less a daily occurance in Europe. While there have been a string of recent attacks, the odds of being killed in a terrorist attack are astronomically low. Let me point you over to the Independent, which clarifies the point; http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nice-attack-do-you-feel-like-youre-more-likely-than-ever-to-be-hit-by-a-terror-attack-this-is-why-a7140396.html. Also, again, Breitbart & co are the main outlets spreading these demonstrable falsehoods, so you're clearly paying attention when they are talking.

Quote from: mumblemumble
Freedom of press is an assinine point : press is inheriently COVERED under free speech, and if you limit free speech, you ALSO limit freedom of the press. AND AGAIN, can people report that they are not free to do the press they want, if expressing that they are not free is illegal? This might indicate on paper that press is great there, but in reality its an iron fist. Remember, press is pointless if speech is silenced.

I'm sorry, are you implying that it is illegal to say that one is not free in the EU? The statistics I linked showed that most western European countries have greater press freedoms than the US. The NGO gathering and compiling this list is based in the US, so it's not limited by any EU censorship, if there was any. Oh, and you haven't asked, but here's a link to the full report (https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FOTP_2017_booklet_FINAL_April28.pdf) so you can have a look at the types of indicators used.

Quote from: mumblemumble
For "general freedoms", I'm not even sure what you are on about : how about specifics? what SPECIFIC freedoms does say, germany have that america does not?

In america I can carry a gun, knife, and have freedom of speech, which is 3 (maybe 2?) that germany DOES NOT have. So what does Germany have that America does not? Because I could not find information there specific to european countries freedom being higher than america : I did look at comparisons of Germany and the United States, and germany scored higher but did not explain why : and civil liberties were rated good in germany, despite freedom of speech being hampered? This Seems bias and inaccurate.

Here's a link to the full report (https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FIW_2017_Report_Final.pdf), read it if you're truly interested in a real debate. You're again saying that freedom of speech is somehow hampered, and yet again you give no evidence of this actually being the case. So a panel of experts compiled a report using official statistics and numerous other sources, but you have what can only be described as a gut feeling that they are wrong, so therefore the report is biased and inaccurate? Is it possible that it is in fact you who are biased and inaccurate?

Quote from: mumblemumble
In short your articles are just a bunch of agencies DECLARING something without explaining data behind it, as far as I can see

No, they are not. They provide lengthy reports (I linked them above), the underlying data (https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FIW2017_Data.zip), as well as the methodology (https://freedomhouse.org/report/methodology-freedom-world-2017) that was used. I think the problem may be that you don't want to see very far.

Quote from: mumblemumble
: and I don't care what the agencies opinions are, I care about hard facts.

That's funny, because I would argue that these NGOs provice facts - or at least opinions based on facts, and you are just stating your opinion. Also, pretty much everything you have said on these forums shows that you only care about facts when you like them.

Quote from: mumblemumble
Plus immigrant freedom should NOT be a factor in a countries freedom. Immigrant freedom is not the freedom of its citizens, its the freedom of outsiders which is 100% up to the countries discretion how they handle it.

Yay, fascism! Freedoms, with a capital F, are fundamental. That means they apply to everyone. Many are enshrined by the UN in the universal declaration of human rights (http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/) and the  international bill of human rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bill_of_Human_Rights). They key point here being that they apply to everyone, as we're all human. To say that these rights do not apply to immigrants is saying that immigrants are less than human. Does that remind you of some ideologies we discussed earlier?

Quote from: mumblemumble
As for your statement...

Quotetldr; your rights end where those of another begin.

Tell me where someones rights begin that I would end up limiting?

Now that is a good question, and one we should all ponder on. The fact of the matter is that most cases that appear before the supreme court in the US, and the court of justice in the EU (highest court in the EU) can be traced back to a conflict between one or more fundamental rights or values.

Quote from: mumblemumble
If you say "a right to not be criticized" or similar : this is not a right, and the same policy you say applies to THEM : their rights to that are stomping on MY right to speak.

Did I say anything of the sort? Being critical is not just a right, it is a civil duty! You should be critical, but don't forget to also be critical of your own side.

Quote from: mumblemumble
Also, its sad you resort to begging for censorship : is this because you do not feel confident having a civil debate? If you feel confident, debate me on it till I am crushed, or you give up, whichever happens first.

First off, this is not censorship. Censorship is a targetted act of limiting free speech by people you don't like or agree with so that only your message is heard. What I'm asking for is a ban on all political discussions, because I don't think they belong here. Anyhow, let's leave that discussion in the relevant thread.

Quote from: mumblemumble
Beyond that, do you realize the hipocracy? People say not to criticize islam to prevent bombings, but then hold europeans to another standard : jihad is normalized while fighting back against islam, or even criticizing it is vilified and made illegal

Who ever said not to criticize islam to prevent bombings? Where is critizicing jihad (or islam) illegal?

There is an argument to be made for not treating all muslims as terrorists, for they might actually become one, but that is a completely different proposition. In addition, you're conflating jihad and islam. There are hundreds of millions (give or take a few) muslims around the world, most of which just want to life a peaceful life like you and me. Then there's a small group of extremists, which want to kill you, me, and most of the other muslims to boot.

You haven't shown me any sources of a case (in a western country) were criticizing islam was illegal, or anyone has been convicted for criticizing islam. I can think of a case in my home country where a politician was convicted (to a very low fine, I might add) for inciting violence against muslims. But given that he is still criticizing islam almost daily in the national and international media, I wouldn't say his right of free speech has been infringed.

Quote from: mumblemumble
Call me a bigot but I find rape, child molestation, be headings and bombings much worse than every racial slur in the book.

Agreed. Doesn't mean that using racial slurs is therefore OK. We're supposed to be better than that, remember?

Quote from: mumblemumble
I also hope we can AT LEAST agree that ww3 is not far off whatsoever, and the immigration issue is CERTAINLY a factor in aggravating it.

God, I hope not. Immigration, in particular the way it is handled, certainly is an issue. But personally, I'm much more worried about the actions of Putin and Trump.

Quotefree speech inciting violence

I asked how this applied to any of this. What I've been saying, and what people get arrested for is NOT an incitement of violence, nor lies : its simply disapproval and criticism of Islam.

You can go down the track of "that still incites violence", but then would you agree that YOU should be jailed for calling me a bigot? Slippery meet slope, and more importantly, such vague interpretations, if distributed equally across all populations would get everyone put in jail eventually for criticizing anyone : you couldn't call out a crappy restaurant without being arrested for hate speech if this was INDEED used evenly for all populations. Beyond that, being unable to vent frustration at all and resolve things peacefully with words is a good way to incite violence at all. I'd much rather face the angry mob I mentioned than get stabbed for being christian, and I'd much rather have a debate than people hate me for demanding censorship : this is one of the reason Islam and the LGBT have gained LOTS of contempt, because people who disagree feel completely silenced in many cases. And while I disagree with it, this is WHY many people turn to assault or murder, because they feel there IS no other option. "If speaking out about gets you a few years, why not spend a little longer and kill a few people to make a difference?". I don't ENDORSE that statement at all, but you gotta understand, this is how this anti free speech approach makes people think. The closer you end up punishing free speech in a comparison to violence, the more often people will ENGAGE in violence, because using words has literally no benefit at this point.

But back onto what you said : you must give an example of something I said, or something someone arrested in europe said to remove someone ELSES right. I do not think an example of this exists, even for the man who said he wish he could "rent out tanks to kill muslims", he did not hurt anyone's rights : and honestly many people in europe already hate muslims as much as him, but are scared to express it. Expressing these does not remove anyones rights though...and what about peoples rights to safety from Islamic terrorism?

Quoteprotesters effecting my life

Really depends on how they approach. If they simply protest outside church for whatever reason, but do not block me, get violent with me, or shout at me (reminder that groups like antifa do this all the damn time) then I will have no problem : who knows, I might even see what they have to say, and they MIGHT convince me not to attend that church, PARTICULARLY if they allow questions, and ANSWER them.

If they get violent, or do other things, that's different, but THOSE are a crime anyway.

If you are saying that you would intimidate me by via standing there and maybe booing at me, it would make me a cowardly bitch to not attend if that was "intimidation". if there was ANYTHING more than this, you are already violating a law, and thus hate speech law is redundant at stopping it.

Quoteyou parrot arguments from alt right fundamentalists

So lets be clear : you say I am alt right because I agree with someone on the alt right. Do you like sunshine? Do you think vitamin D is good for you?

If you say yes, you are also alt right by your own logic, as alt right also argue vitamin D is good for you

This is where this kind of argument falls to shit : you say I am something because I have similarities to it. If you have issues with my POLICIES and OPINIONS, state them directly, don't make half assed arguments based on a "genetic" fallacy.

QuoteOn a side note, I'd like to point out that using mentall illnesses as a derogatory term is rather offensive.

Its a medical term, and I'm very much against moving the goal post and renaming things every 5 years. Retarded, mentally ill, brain dead, stupid, ect : all fit the bill for what is described, technically speaking. To make clear, not saying you ARE those, but its important to point out that these are technical terms in the mental health industry : and as for being offensive, so is calling me alt right, but adults tolerate offensive things, particularly if there is no intent behind it.

QuoteActually, it's a term coined to 'disguise' white nationalism

And this is another attempt to move the goal posts. Apparently people who are patriotic, are for free speech, and voted for trump are all "white nationalists" is this what you are saying? Because I know jews, blacks, asians, and other groups who voted for him. Can black guys be white nationalists?

Heres a better question : who calls THEMSELVES white nationalists? Because I don't give a rats if YOU call them white nationalists, I care if THEY call themselves white nationalists : because alt right, white nationalists, these are all LABELS, and rather than worry about labels, I'd like to know why you figure any group is white nationalist. Apparently any group of whites who express ethnic pride are white nationalists, from what I've read.

So I guess my question is what your arguments are for the following being white nationalist
-infowars
-brietbart
-louder with crowder
-lauren southern
-ben shapiro (remember, hes JEWISH  ;))
-any others you care to talk about

otherwise I will discard what you say about "white nationalists" as a damned goosechase.

Quotewhites want to dominate

Right, and I've seen nothing about this.

The most extreme stuff I can find that is serious is someone saying they are worried about the declining ethnic European population percentage, and the Muslim invasion of European homelands. But thats not anymore white supremacist than black people who want to visit africa and preserve it for blacks are BLACK supremacist.

As stated above, find me examples and I'll start denouncing them - otherwise your talk is going nowhere

Also, I acknowledged Asians have a higher IQ on average, though probably due to a much better education system and culture.

Quoteusing their language

And you are using the language of murderers who aren't actively murdering anyone at the moment. Big whoop, its a non argument, actually point out flaws in my argument rather than say I talk similar to some hypothetical asshole. Its stupid to try and debate this way.

QuoteIn your example, you're already making a value judgment about someones personal life - isn't that pretty much the definition you yourself just gave? You're also making wild claims about Europe (which, by the way, is composed of a few dozen independent states, each with their own laws and customs), without any proof or substantiation. I've linked you the FreedomHouse website earlier, which tracks precisely this kind of thing. European countries did equal or better than the US on civil liberties. A point you seem to have missed, but lets get back to that later.

Making a judgement is not bigoted

Bigotry is being completely UNWILLING to hear the other side at the debate table : I am here with you, debating aren't I? This is proof I'm not bigoted on this matter. However anti hate speech laws are very bigoted.

As for Europe, yes, I realize its many places, and its mainly a fault of the EU and merkel,  whos a terrible person not deserving of a roof over her head. Some countries are immune to this granted, but if you want me to name names, France, Germany, and Sweden especially have been fucked up. Reminder that Sweden has an immensely high rape rate which directly correlates to the Muslim immigration.
http://investmentwatchblog.com/sweden-on-brink-of-civil-war-police-begging-for-help-legal-system-collapsing/
you might say this is fake news, but please tell me about the footage of the rioting, and what you think... Its from a Swedish news station for FUCKS SAKE...

But to clear things up, bigotry is not judging someone

bigotry is refusing to even tolerate something. And this is something you've actively advocated for by asking for a ban on political speech : you are promoting bigotry.

Quoteyou ate fish

Damn right, salmon is delicious yo  :D

Quotenever directly called you such things

I do recall somewhere saying Europe was turning into a hellhole, so this would apply to me : at very least you unconsciously called me that. Well, how about this, SWEDEN is a hellhole, with the rape rate and the police and law system almost collapsing. Is that fair? or am I an alt right bigot for saying that? Or at very least, realistically speaking, sweden is going to shit.

QuoteFull report

Gotcha (and damn thats a handful!). The reason why I didn't look it up myself is simple : I find that when it comes to arguments, its up to the person arguing to provide the source of something : its to keep us both intellectually honest, I might say I never found this, or just been to lazy to find it, or you could do the same. Or you might tell me to look up something non existent, then blame me when I never find it. It just works better with people providing sources for what they argue.

From what I gather, they say areas like sweden have more civil liberties than the US,  and less corruption...but considering you cannot have free speech, and the EU is corrupt and putting immigrants before its citizens, I find this to be a fat joke.

QuoteI agree with your friend

Theres a distinguishment between a friendly joke between friends, and a jab at someone.

its fair to say I think, that you don't view me as a friend, and thus its not a joke between friends.

however, I think the title we all bestow on each other in this context would apply to you too, so we are all even then? Though to be honest, you aren't close enough to me this kind of behavior is acceptable.

QuoteOnly after they've bought the terrorists' family some cookies.

This better be a joke. If serious, you sound like the people who tell children to write letters to ISIS to show they are accepting of other cultures, despite the fact they have sex slave rings and burn Christians in cages. It almost seems to me like you are endorsing Islamic terrorism. If so, that is disgusting.

Even if it IS a joke, that isn't funny : people losing their family in a violent explosion because a muslim wants 72 virgins is not something to be joked about.

Are you OK with then aids jokes about gays, or depictions of Mohammad being sodomized?

Seriously, where is your line on whats OK as a joke..... or are you dead serious about a man making COOKIES for people who MURDERED his children?

I DO hope you take this back as a horribly TASTELESS joke, I'm giving you the chance to do that.. ... Revoke the statement.

QuoteTerrorism isn't so bad

Terrorism goes beyond the death toll : I'd much rather I die in a car crash than a jihad attack, simply because theres other effects BEYOND death.

Terrorism puts other citizens on edge, makes children have nightmares, makes people on edge around the group who committed the terrorism. It also forces the population to be more accepting of something, via force : car crashes don't do this

By the same logic why are you against the KKK? They only killed a few hundred black men, alcohol kills far more per year right?

THIS is the kind of ass backwards logic its using. And the fact is nobody feels terrified about beer, but they are terrified of the KKK, and muslims. Murder is VERY different than a freak accident.

Quotefree press

I'm not reading through another giant PDF. I have just 1 question : can free press then say that they think muslims are ruining the country? If not, how is the press free? In America different "press" (which I admit it used a bit shakily) have the right to say whatever the hell they like, as do citizens.

if not, you cannot say you are MORE free than America, end of story, at least not where it matters.

QuoteYou're again saying that freedom of speech is somehow hampered, and yet again you give no evidence of this actually being the case.

In the US I can say "fuck xyz group, they are ruining America" and not face criminal charges.

In some European countries, police would arrest me for saying this if its directed against the LGBT or muslims.

Quoteopinions based on facts

Still opinions, thats the key word bud. And if you expect me to read 188 pages through entirely just because you think there might be something, no. If YOU want to expose text I'm missing which is crucial to your argument, go ahead, but I'm not seeing it.

Go ahead, post it in a quote, and I will use ctrl f to find it in the document.

Otherwise, I have no reason to believe its anything more than an agency spouting its opinion. And why should I believe you in such things being in the document if you can't find it yourself?

QuoteFreedoms, with a capital F, are fundamental. That means they apply to everyone

not CITIZENS freedoms no, those are for CITIZENS, nobody else. And people give up their freedoms when they break laws, or do any action really, if a bunch of immigrants get on a raft to illegally immigrate, that is a crime and they give up their rights to freedom, and right to safety. No rights give you freedom from consequences under law.

You cannot blame people for removing your rights when you yourself break rules.

Quoteless than human

no it implies the people broke laws, and thus gave up their rights

think of it this way, if a whackjob starts stabbing people at random, does he have a right to safety? NO!!!

your rights END where mine begin, and where laws begin : this is a fact of how low and humans work. Don't be concerned about your rights while messing with others or breaking laws.

QuoteThe fact of the matter is that most cases that appear before the supreme court in the US

specifics or don't even talk to me : you are equivocating far too much. Do me a favor, do not bother to respond unless you have CONCRETE things to say about YOUR beliefs and YOUR position, equivocating all day is a deceitful thing to do, and wastes everyone's time : if you have beliefs, express them without shame. If you don't then lurk the forums. Simple as that

QuoteBeing critical is not just a right, it is a civil duty!

Unless its against the LGBT or Islam, correct??? This is exactly what I meant, you say be critical, but you don't want any criticism towards YOUR things. Enough that you, after this thread was opened, demand a ban on political discussions. Disgusting. And don't tell me to be critical of my own beliefs : I am, thats why I distinguish sunni from shia and all those things : still doesn't mean that everything else is incorrect. Rather than tell me to be critical, make ACTUAL CRITICISM of my own statements!!! and no, that doesn't mean saying I sound like an "alt right" person.

QuoteCensorship is a targetted act of limiting free speech by people you don't like or agree with so that only your message is heard

You are targeting an act at limiting my freedom of speech on ludeon. You don't like, and disagree with me. You also have no message at all, short of that you disagree and want this shut down

You are attempting censorship of my views of which you disagree with.

QuoteWhere is critizicing jihad (or islam) illegal?

https://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/18116-new-swedish-law-criminalizes-anti-immigration-internet-speech

Quote
There is an argument to be made for not treating all muslims as terrorists, for they might actually become one, but that is a completely different proposition. In addition, you're conflating jihad and islam. There are hundreds of millions (give or take a few) muslims around the world, most of which just want to life a peaceful life like you and me. Then there's a small group of extremists, which want to kill you, me, and most of the other muslims to boot.

Fair point

To which we then need to take actions

actions like halting immigration, deporting people, and getting paperwork done for immigrants to ensure they are NOT isis soldiers, and also have a VERY firm crackdown on shia and wahabism forms of islam. Is this fair? Because you would still be disagreeing with much of the EU govt by agreeing with that. And this isn't even touching the massive issue of taqiyya which puts all of "Islam" in a seriously DANGEROUS basket unless you keep a monitor on it.

Quote
You haven't shown me any sources of a case (in a western country) were criticizing islam was illegal, or anyone has been convicted for criticizing islam

Sweden and Germany are not western???

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/sussex-police-imprison-man-speaking-radical-islamic-hate-violence/

QuoteDoesn't mean that using racial slurs is therefore OK

Its ok in terms of the surrounding context : or should be. If someone murders your daughter, I think you get a free pass for at least 3 days to use racial slurs minimum.

And my point was you shouldn't be arresting folks for racial slurs while doing NOTHING about murders or rape, which is a bit of an issue since swedens police is unable to stop many issues.

QuoteI'm much more worried about the actions of Putin and Trump.

If I'm completely honest, an annexation by either one over Germany, Sweden, and others would be less bloody and harmful than letting the current immigration fetishist government of the EU continue to bleed Europe dry via rape and terrorist attacks.

Oh and a reminder....

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on June 27, 2017, 08:54:41 PM
   

Quote from: mumblewhat if someone had say, their children killed in an islamic extremist bombing : are they allowed to say this makes them unhappy?

Only after they've bought the terrorists' family some cookies.

Take that disgusting shit back. I don't care if it was a joke or not, but that is disgusting even if it IS a joke. And if you are serious, I cannot state how I feel without guaranteeing a ban from ramsis.

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on June 27, 2017, 08:54:41 PM

The ideology of national socialism (a neo-nazis in particular) has very little to do with socialism.

Actually, this isn't necessarily entirely true. Don't get me wrong — I'm a socialist myself who has complete dislike for any kind of national socialism. But, strasserim technically would have been socialism with the obsession on races. However more interestingly, certain countries that contemporary liberal socialists hold in high regard as examples, have actually had quite a twisted past that flirts a lot with fascism. I only know that Sweden and Finland are such examples. The concept of the welfare state that emerged in these two countries actually stems from Rudolf Kjellen (Sweden was first with Folkhemmet which had highly nationalist undertones, Finland followed as Urho Kekkonen got inspired by Sweden). While no clear historical evidence of this exists to my knowledge, but Rudolf Kjellen seemed to inspire the domestic policies that Hitler pursued by a huge margin.

However, in practice, capitalists of Ruhr didn't seem to complain about what they got and indeed, the means of production were certainly not controlled by the working class. Likely most people will disagree with the statement that it was "more capitalist than socialist", but likely most of these people also think that capitalism is about free markets (which becomes an issue with semantics). It's safe to say that most people who identify as "capitalists" these days would not support policies that were implemented in Nazi Germany (even though same policies did benefit capitalists in there).

With this being said, I have no issues with your reply in itself. Just thought this might be interesting thing to point out.

Quoteits simply disapproval and criticism of Islam.

Can you direct us to some real world examples where a person got prosecuted for hate speech for legitimate criticism of Islam in western countries? All the examples I know in Finland who have got prosecuted for that have pretty much deserved it. Most moderate out of all these people that I know of, Jussi Halla-aho, referred to all muslims as parasitic lifeforms and also implied that they're pedophiles and that people of Somalia have genetic disposition to robbing and living off taxpayers money. This is the most controversial account in Finland where someone got a sentence for a hate crime. And to me, it doesn't look controversial at all, he should have gotten it and he did.

Quotebut then would you agree that YOU should be jailed for calling me a bigot? [...]

Sorry, you have to draw a line somewhere and that line happens to be above calling people as bigots. If you have a problem with people calling you as a bigot, you might for once want to check whenever the issue is in those people or in your own actions.

QuoteBut back onto what you said : you must give an example of something I said, or something someone arrested in europe said to remove someone ELSES right

Now, I'm a different person, but I just did give an example (the Jussi Halla-aho one). It's a great example of writing that inspires hatred among other people which can materialize at worst as violence against certain groups of people and thus threatens their rights to, you know, not be victims of physical assault or worse.

Quoteand honestly many people in europe already hate muslims as much as him

You might as well be arguing that NSDAP was actually the right party to win the elections, because you know, it got more support than the other parties.

Quotethen I will have no problem

Good for you. I also hear that some people don't have problems when people physically assault them, so make that legal too.

QuoteSo lets be clear : you say I am alt right because I agree with someone on the alt right.

They were saying that you're using the very same arguments that most alt-right people do. And FWIW, I also think so.

QuoteIts a medical term, and I'm very much against moving the goal post and renaming things every 5 years. Retarded, mentally ill, brain dead, stupid, ect : all fit the bill for what is described

There's a problem. The medical definition of "retarded" is that your measured IQ is under 75. You will not likely be using internet or writing series of complete sentences or arguing at all in internet. So categorically, calling your opponent as "retarded" is always wrong by the medical definition, unless you're physically trying to argue with such a person. The medical definition for "mentally ill" is... nothing. In medicine sciences they do not use that term at all for research purposes or anything like that anymore. Even for juridical purposes this term is now obsolete. There is absolutely no way to come up with a definition of "mentally ill" that would stay coherent AND not include every single person on the planet in it. Same goes for "healthy person"*; you can't come up with an actual definition for a healthy person that could describe even a single adult out there. The medical definition for brain dead is that your brains have lost all of its functions and that they cannot be restored back. So calling opponent in the internet as "brain dead" is kind of weird, unless you really somehow think that you are arguing with a person who has lost all of its brains functions. Medical definition of stupidity is... yeah, doesn't exist. Not sure if it ever has existed, but heck, maybe it has in history.

So what I'm trying to say is, you're going to make yourself look like a fool if you're arguing that using mental illnesses as a derogatory term is somehow justified for being "medical term", or any other terms you have provided, for reasons I've explained.

*To be honest, some organizations have actually definition for a "healthy person", such as WHO and it had this exact problem. You can read more about this problem in here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1463144/

QuoteApparently people who are patriotic, are for free speech, and voted for trump are all "white nationalists" is this what you are saying?

That's not what they were saying. They were saying that alt-right is a term that extreme right white nationalists came up to describe their movement with that sounds just so much more socially acceptable than, say, "national socialist" or "neonazi" or anything like that. This sort of tactic is pretty old one and it's really just standard kind of populism but with a really atrocious end goal.

There's no moving of goalposts here. Seriously, I'm starting to think that you have a roulette in your home filled with rhetorical fallacies which you spin to get randomly a name of a fallacy that you'll input whenever you can't come up with anything better.

QuoteI'd like to know why you figure any group is white nationalist

A good place to begin with would be racism. And boy is infowars, Breitbart etc full of that. Take this as an example: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/stephen-bannon-facebook-group-racist-material-obama-death-threats/

QuoteThe most extreme stuff I can find that is serious is someone saying they are worried about the declining ethnic European population percentage, and the Muslim invasion of European homelands. But thats not anymore white supremacist than black people who want to visit africa and preserve it for blacks are BLACK supremacist.

I think this quote sort of delegitimizes everything you have said in this thread. If you are seriously going to say that that is the most extreme stuff you can find, well, right about now if I didn't care about the chance of being banned, I'd say a couple things directed at you which you would not likely enjoy.

Basically, this is you admitting how much of a bias you have. Have you heard about Breivik? Yeah, that one guy who killed 77 people (most of which were children) after he wrote a manifesto about that whole "muslim invasion" stuff. And Breivik has had so many sympathizers after the fact, that you can't anymore deny the fact that we're talking merely about one isolated case. Many people have been arrested for planning similar things with sympathies for Breivik and countless people online have defended his actions (because those kids happened to be children of democrats).

"the most extreme stuff" my ass. Sadly it's not up to me, but if it was, that comment would have granted you at the very least a week worth of ban, hopefully resulting into you considering how far you want to go to defend hatred against humanity. I'm gonna skip mostly the rest apart from couple things just to make a clear.

Quotehttps://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/18116-new-swedish-law-criminalizes-anti-immigration-internet-speech

There's something  funny about that article. It first uses a source( http://pamelageller.com/2014/04/sharia-sweden-swedish-newspaper-hacks-discus-goes-commenters-homes-cameramen.html/#sthash.3jsuIsrj.dpuf ) that doesn't have anything to do with the topic. I know about this case and in fact, I know that this article is bullshit. Expressen did not use hackers for anything, the hackers were leftist people who then released the information to the news. Want to know in particular why people loved that case? Because unlike the common claim that alt-right and fascists and whatnot make, they were the "vocal minority" themselves. Majority of those hateful comments were actually made by a very small group of people. This is what the hackers wanted to find out and it is, indeed, what they found out. It was extremely demoralizing to the far-right of Sweden, because it was then in public that they were actually very small group of people in the internet. It was literally so bad that about 10% of the commentators were making over 60% of the actual comments (most of which were hateful).

More about your article. The second source is very funny. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/swedens-hate-speech-law-condemned-at-un-human-rights-commission

That is from year 2005 (and to nobodys surprise, that source doesn't have any sources in itself for its claims). But... in year 2014 (the year your article was written), UN actually asked Sweden to intensify the fight against discrimination of black people in particular: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49547

Do you really even bother to check the sources your links use?

Quotehttp://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/sussex-police-imprison-man-speaking-radical-islamic-hate-violence/

Oh sorry, I didn't know "put Muslim on the top of a bonfire" is actually legitimate criticism of Islam. Of course, how terrible it was for me to assume otherwise. You know, I actually understand now; when he suggested "bomb a mosque day", this was actually obscene critique, where this person merely wanted to draw out the Big Other of everyone to reflect the gruesome realities of PC culture, by positing himself in such a predicament *sniff*

This has absolutely nothing to do with UK criminalizing critique of Islam. It has to do with UK sentencing a person who has wrote atrocious things in facebook. If you think that is legit critique of Islam, then you have some serious issues with your worldview. Like really serious issues.

Also, to end this post, here's a picture. People don't want to criminalize critique of Islam, people are just getting tired of assholes who have nothing better to do with their lives than spreading their hate online through the protection of anonymity or pseudonym:

(http://i.imgur.com/2E5Wd9o.jpg)

Wait, you have no problem with his post : so you support joking about a man giving cookies to people who killed, or possibly raped his daughter?

QuoteCan you direct us to some real world examples where a person got prosecuted for hate speech for legitimate criticism of Islam in western countries?

https://www.theverge.com/2016/3/24/11297128/matthew-doyle-arrest-muslim-tweet-brussels

Beyond this, it shouldn't ever be at the point of considering arrests, unless there's an active call for violence. Anything else is too damn vague, and is punishing a victim-less crime...no, I do not consider hurt feelings being a "victim", short of maybe fucking with someone after a death.

QuoteYour own actions

Noted : calling for removal or rapists and terrorists in Europe is bigoted. Feminists are also bigoted.

Quotewriting that inspires hatred

Want to know what inspires hatred more? Rapists, child molests, and terrorism.

Doesn't matter how much PR you give it, people will hate ANY group who does that.

QuoteNSDAP

not familiar with them : care to explain why they SHOULD NOT win elections? I get the feeling you don't want to explain anything, as it would punch holes in your story. but feel free to prove me wrong.

Quoteassault

assault causes physical damage which is long term and sometimes irreversible in damage. Insults and "hate speech" does not.

Quoteyou're using the very same arguments that most alt-right people do

you're using the very same arguments that most lying evil people do

.... does this mean you are one?

But in all seriousness, you BOTH equivocate like nobodies business, talking yet saying nothing at all. And this is a trait of a well versed liar. If you want to prove yourself not a liar, answer questions. Want to prove yourself untrustworthy? Keep equivocating and dodging questions.

QuoteThere's a problem. The medical definition of "retarded" is that your measured IQ is under 75.

You missed the point where I compared this to him calling me an alt right fundamentalist right?

You must have...

It was a joke to prove a point, that I have no evidence of him being mentally ill, or mentally handicapped, as he does not have proof of me being an "alt right fundamentalist bigot". I also didn't take the definition very serious, I was merely pointing out that all of those are medical terms and him arguing its used as a derogatory term (in a hypothetical sense mind you) is asinine, as all of those are, or have been medical terms.

QuoteThey were saying that alt-right is a term that extreme right white nationalists came up to describe their movement with that sounds just so much more socially acceptable than, say, "national socialist" or "neonazi" or anything like that. This sort of tactic is pretty old one and it's really just standard kind of populism but with a really atrocious end goal.

Wait, but how are you sure these are even the same people? and WHO the hell are you talking about anyway?

It also doesn't help I've honestly heard the term "alt right" used FAR more by liberals in an accusatory fashion than I've heard anyone call THEMSELVES alt right, and the few who did were honestly just on the bench of being against gay marriage when modern republicans weren't. Thats about it.

I say you are moving the goal posts by accusing people of being "neonazis" withou defining what anyone is DOING. alt right can mean anything at this point, and you both REFUSE to address what it means to you. Does it means people who lynch blacks and jews, or people who support trump? What qualifies it?

Rather than say neonazi, or alt right, or skinhead, or national socialist, how about you list a few values, which are 1, absolutely horrific, and 2, are had by the hypothetical people?

Once you do THAT (give it a definition, I mean) THEN we can debate about "is mumble a neonazi". But if you are just going to talk about neonazis and alt right without defining the values and their beliefs, then you might as well drop the discussion, because you yourself don't know what you are on about.

...I guess you are just throwing around empty labels without definition instead of moving goalposts. Ok how about that : you never SET a goal post to begin with.

Quotefacebook bs

Congrats, you listed random nobodies shitposting crap as proof info wars is racist. I guess you are also willing to admit antifa and BLM are terrorist organizations then correct? Because theres significantly more proof of that than entire groups being racist.

I really don't even care about this, the loose death theat on there is the only thing worth mentioning, and you absolutely cannot take THAT serious as a means to think bannon is awful when also supporting groups like BLM that have lead to the murder of police officer and assault / torture of whites. Race relations went to shit with obama, and this is a symptom of it : and he badly hurt America by destroying the coal industry / allowing men into womens bathrooms if they use the magic password "I identify as a woman". But I'm getting off topic : long story short, obama had reason to be disliked by many Americans, and if the worst you got, I'm hardly convinced. Also, the article itself says its dubious if it was even his FB.

another thing to consider is nigger isn't exclusively used against black men : the sheriff from Milwaukee county for instance who trump was interested in, very few of these people you are talking about would call HIM a nigger, and this because a nigger to them is someone who does terrible actions. Not to say you cannot find them, but they are significantly less common than people calling shitty people niggers, rather than all black people, despite their character niggers.

Though I'm convinced brietbart is more edgy than anything else really.

QuoteIf you are seriously going to say that that is the most extreme stuff you can find

I'm talking about anything main stream that you people are talking about : obviously I'm discluding BOTH the kkk, actual neonazis whom advocate for "killing niggers and jews" because thats so damn obvious I figured it was redundant.

I guess the main thing I'm getting at is you conflate people who are pro free speech, people who are "racist", and actual neonazis into 1 big bag. They shouldn't be grouped together though, and even now, I see little if any support for these groups.

But I will say, pushing people away with rhetoric and censorship will end up encouraging white supremacist radicalism. If people cannot voice their opinions, they will turn to more radical means.

QuoteBrevik

That guy? Sorry, but, who outside stormfront, or 4 chan shit posting sympathizes that guy? I thought we were discluding fringe stuff.

And this guy is in jail isn't he?

... Though its rather ironic that he would do that, and muslims in europe would make a situation that makes him out to seem like he was right : don't you find this even SLIGHTLY ironic, that despite this, muslims do the things which FUEL  such hatred?

Quotearticle

I don't care about your unrelated criticism : the law they are talking about exists right? Thats all that matters, and its why I looked it up.

QuoteDo you think that is ok?

What do you think is causing this hate though? Its certainly not OTHER people saying this crap, its the fact theres rape, murder, and terrorism so regularly that people have HAD IT. Its not ok, but it has a damn clear cause, and this kind of talk would of been prevented had immigration not let in ISIS memebers. Also, why are you more upset about TALK of "bombing a mosque" than actual bombings FROM mosques? If you want to prevent these tasteless conversations, prevent the causes : its unrealistic to expect an entire population
to endure such horrible things and NOT make off-color comments.

QuoteChildish picture

Its odd you conflate calling someone fat, sexually harassing someone, telling a black person to go back to Africa and saying Islam is violent. They are all so immensely different, and Islam statistically is horrifically more violent than any other culture, with possible exception to a few more primative, tribal groups..

@mellowautomata; thanks for the well thought out reply. I agree, what I said was a gross oversimplification.

@mumble;

Quote
would you agree that YOU should be jailed for calling me a bigot?

No, because I did not in any way threaten you, or suggest that any harm should come to you.

Quote
you couldn't call out a crappy restaurant without being arrested for hate speech if this was INDEED used evenly for all populations

That's an argument reductio ad absurdum, and has no merit in and of itself. Food journalism can be harsh (https://www.eater.com/2015/12/23/10649488/scathing-restaurant-reviews-of-2015), but it rarely becomes hate speech.

Quote
So lets be clear : you say I am alt right because I agree with someone on the alt right. Do you like sunshine? Do you think vitamin D is good for you?

If you say yes, you are also alt right by your own logic, as alt right also argue vitamin D is good for you

Reductio ad absurdum again. The arguments and examples you have used (e.g. 'rape capital sweden', 'immigrants are ruining europe') are repeatedly, and largely exclusively made by alt-right groups. It is therefore an identifying feature. On the other hand, me liking sunshine just classifies me as human.

QuoteIf you have issues with my POLICIES and OPINIONS, state them directly

I have spent a large amount of time last night pointing out specific problems with your opinions, and, for some reason I don't quite understand myself, am doing that again this morning. As for your policies, I'm not sure what they are - you don't seem to mention any.

QuoteRetarded, mentally ill, brain dead, stupid, ect : all fit the bill for what is described, technically speaking.

No, they do not. Retarded may have once been a medical term, but is now only used as a derogatory term. Brain dead and mentally ill are completely different things, and any professional who uses them interchangeably is going to have some issues.

QuoteCan black guys be white nationalists?

Yes. So can jews. And women. Also homosexuals. The movement is surprisingly welcoming in that way.

QuoteSo I guess my question is what your arguments are for the following being white nationalist

They (or at least the ones I recognise) are part of the alt-right movement. Some may be white nationalists (Breitbart, for example), others may take a more moderate stance. I agree with you that labels are just labels, so therefore I'm judging them by their words.

Quotefind me examples and I'll start denouncing them

If you're not going to listen anyway, that doesn't seem like a very useful excercise. But thanks for confirming my suspicions.

QuoteBut thats not anymore white supremacist than black people who want to visit africa and preserve it for blacks are BLACK supremacist.

I agree! So a hypothetical scenario in one continent makes a very real problem in another continent OK? Although, given the history of suppression in africa (both slavery and colonialism), I'm tempted to cut them a little bit more slack. Nevertheless, the basic principle would be the same.

QuoteI am here with you, debating aren't I? This is proof I'm not bigoted on this matter.

First off, what you're doing can hardly be described as debating - more as a venting of opinions. Second, it's perfectly possible to be both bigotted and still have a debate. Especially if you're just going to ignore the other sides' arguments anyway.

QuoteHowever anti hate speech laws are very bigoted.

Having a debate does not preclude bigotry. Some debates are bigotted, and one could argue should not be had.

QuoteFrance, Germany, and Sweden especially have been fucked up

Yes, taking in hundreds of thousands of refugees has put stresses on these societies. There's some legitimate arguments to be had there, but none of these countries are even close to 'the brink of collapse'. The footage shown has been taken out of context. Yes, some riots and incidents have occured - but they were on a much smaller scale than, for example, the riots in Ferguson and other US cities. For a more thoughtful analyses of the situation in sweden, see this article (http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/10/the-death-of-the-most-generous-nation-on-earth-sweden-syria-refugee-europe/).

QuoteThe reason why I didn't look it up myself is simple : I find that when it comes to arguments, its up to the person arguing to provide the source of something : its to keep us both intellectually honest, I might say I never found this, or just been to lazy to find it, or you could do the same. Or you might tell me to look up something non existent, then blame me when I never find it. It just works better with people providing sources for what they argue.

I completely agree, which is why I provided links to sources. Please provide actual factual evidence of freedom of speech and press being deligitimized in the EU, and not just a handful of hate speech and inciting to violence cases.

QuoteReminder that Sweden has an immensely high rape rate which directly correlates to the Muslim immigration.

That is a falsehood (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39056786), and has been repeatedly (http://www.snopes.com/crime-sweden-rape-capital-europe/) debunked (http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/WP0KG/the-crime-situation-in-sweden-compared-to-the-us-in-4-charts).

QuoteWell, how about this, SWEDEN is a hellhole, with the rape rate and the police and law system almost collapsing. Is that fair? or am I an alt right bigot for saying that? Or at very least, realistically speaking, sweden is going to shit.

You would be repeating the lies and misinformation spread by the alt-right, so I'd say yes, you would be an alt-right bigot. Sweden is neither the rape capital of the world, nor is it  a hellhole (http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/sweden/), nor is it going to shit (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/20/last-night-in-sweden-figment-trumps-fox-news-inspired-imagination).

QuoteFrom what I gather, they say areas like sweden have more civil liberties than the US,  and less corruption...but considering you cannot have free speech, and the EU is corrupt and putting immigrants before its citizens, I find this to be a fat joke.

I think this is the whole problem with you, your argument, and the whole alt-right movement. I've provided evidence from a credible source, backed up by actual data that has been gathered over decades, and vetted by research professionals. The implications of that evidence do not fit your world view, and therefore the evidence is 'a fat joke'. You said earlier that you were willing to have a debate, but your attitude clearly contradicts that.

QuoteThis better be a joke. If serious, you sound like the people who tell children to write letters to ISIS to show they are accepting of other cultures, despite the fact they have sex slave rings and burn Christians in cages. It almost seems to me like you are endorsing Islamic terrorism. If so, that is disgusting.

That was a joke. Even when taken out of context, it was clearly a joke. Let's put it back in context though, you said:

"So I would take it with a grain of salt, and beyond that, what if someone had said, their children killed in an islamic extremist bombing : are they allowed to say this makes them unhappy?"

Which was so utterly ridiculous and blatantly trolling, that I did not feel like justifying it with a thought out comment.

QuoteTerrorism goes beyond the death toll : I'd much rather I die in a car crash than a jihad attack, simply because theres other effects BEYOND death.

I agree, terrorism is worse than car crashes. The goal of terror is not just to get us to do something - it's to frighten, destabilize, separate and ultimately destroy our western societies. Overreacting and creating more fear, prejudices and polarising society doesn't stop terrorism, it actually helps them achieve their aims. On their own, the acts of desctruction have a death toll that is almost negligable. That is not to say these deaths aren't horrible, but to put them in a proper perspective.

QuoteBy the same logic why are you against the KKK? They only killed a few hundred black men, alcohol kills far more per year right?

THIS is the kind of ass backwards logic its using. And the fact is nobody feels terrified about beer, but they are terrified of the KKK, and muslims. Murder is VERY different than a freak accident.

This is actually my point. We didn't overreact and (propose to) ban white sheets, the bible, or white people travelling into the US. The members of the KKK were investigated, arrested, and - after a due trial - convicted. As for as I'm aware, the movement has now been all but eradicated.

QuoteI'm not reading through another giant PDF.

Thats why I linked you the map, which conveniently distills all this information into a single interactive visualisation. You asked for sources, so that's the pdf.

QuoteI have just 1 question : can free press then say that they think muslims are ruining the country?

yes, they can. The press generally enjoys even more freedom to say what it wants than individual citizens do.

Quoteif not, you cannot say you are MORE free than America, end of story, at least not where it matters.

That depends entirely on your ideas on what freedoms matter. As I've previously stated, most Europeans do not feel freedom of speech should be held above all other freedoms, or at all costs.

QuoteIn some European countries, police would arrest me for saying ["fuck xyz group, they are ruining America"] if its directed against the LGBT or muslims.

Sources, please. All the links you've shows so far are cases where individuals made repeated violent and threathening comments, crossing the boundaries of free speech and ending up inciting violence.

Quotenot CITIZENS freedoms no, those are for CITIZENS, nobody else. And people give up their freedoms when they break laws, or do any action really, if a bunch of immigrants get on a raft to illegally immigrate, that is a crime and they give up their rights to freedom, and right to safety. No rights give you freedom from consequences under law.

No. These are FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS. That means they apply to everyone, all of the time. The right to freedom is indeed offset by society's right to safety, which is why the legal imprisonment of criminals after a fair trial is explicitly allowed.

QuoteYou cannot blame people for removing your rights when you yourself break rules.

Yes, you can. Even criminals have rights; the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right for safety (even, or perhaps especially in prison, as prisoners are completely at the mercy of the state).

QuoteAnd if you expect me to read 188 pages through entirely just because you think there might be something, no. If YOU want to expose text I'm missing which is crucial to your argument, go ahead, but I'm not seeing it.

Again, that's why I linked the map, which neatly summarizes the argument. You asked for sources, so that's the pdf. It's well laid out and has an index, so if you have any particular points of interest, feel free to actually read it.

Quote[...being critical is a civil duty...] Unless its against the LGBT or Islam, correct??? This is exactly what I meant, you say be critical, but you don't want any criticism towards YOUR things.

I am critical of some parts of the LGBT movement, `some aspects of Islam, as well as the behaviour of some members of these groups - and the way some news outlets report on them. However, the LGBT community is not the object of discussion here, so lets put them aside. The main point of contention here is your assertion that Europe is not free, and the accompanying lies and misinformation you are naievely or willfully spreading.

I have presented evidence including sources refuting the 'facts' you have presented on multiple occasions now, but you have chosen to ignore it as 'a fat joke' whenever it didn't fit your personal world view.

QuoteYou are targeting an act at limiting my freedom of speech on ludeon. You don't like, and disagree with me. You also have no message at all, short of that you disagree and want this shut down

You are attempting censorship of my views of which you disagree with.

First off, I clearly do have a message. Yes, I disagree with your statements, largely because they are in large part based on falsehoods and misrepresentations.
Second, freedom of speech does not apply here. XKCD has said it better than I could, so here goes;
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png)
But to reiterate my views on that topic; I do not feel political discussions of any form have a place on these forums.

Quote
actions like halting immigration, deporting people, and getting paperwork done for immigrants to ensure they are NOT isis soldiers, and also have a VERY firm crackdown on shia and wahabism forms of islam. Is this fair? Because you would still be disagreeing with much of the EU govt by agreeing with that. And this isn't even touching the massive issue of taqiyya which puts all of "Islam" in a seriously DANGEROUS basket unless you keep a monitor on it.

You're agreeing with my argument, but are then stating a diametrically opposed view. What you're suggesting is essentially to treat all muslims (or even all nationals of a subset of muslim countries) as terrorists.

QuoteYou haven't shown me any sources of a case (in a western country) were criticizing islam was illegal, or anyone has been convicted for criticizing islam
Sweden and Germany are not western???

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/sussex-police-imprison-man-speaking-radical-islamic-hate-violence/

Sweden and Germany are western, but you haven't shown any evidence of either one criminalizing free speech. The link you give is for a case in the UK, where a man was convicted for repeatedly suggesting that - and I'm paraphrasing here - all muslims deserve to die a horrible death. That is not criticism, that is threathening and provoking violence. I'd also like to note that only four such cases have been brought before UK courts, and only after very thorough vetting.

Quote
Quote
I'm much more worried about the actions of Putin and Trump.

If I'm completely honest, an annexation by either one over Germany, Sweden, and others would be less bloody and harmful than letting the current immigration fetishist government of the EU continue to bleed Europe dry via rape and terrorist attacks.

I'm just speechless.


P.S. I'm having a hard time keepin up with this discussion, and I have other things to do. You're unwilling to have an actual argument, presenting proven falsehoods as facts, and dismissing arguments that contradict your statements without any real justification. Argueing with you is pointless. The only reason I make the effort at all is to present a counterview, so that anyone happening upon this topic can make their own informed opinions based on a more truthful representation of the facts.

Quoteno harm

my problem is that when jokes are treated this way. And often people talking with nasty rhetoric but no violent speech are arrested too.

Besides this, its different when the advancement of Islam is literally putting lives in danger : I would find agreement maybe if you AT LEAST were anti sharia.

I admit its only made worse by the likes of antifa and hooligans who try and shut down debate with threats or air horns : these people I think deserve prison for harassment and assault, as well as trying to strong arm censorship via their own force.

Quoterarely becomes hate speech.

Hate speech is incredibly subjective. Basically the court claims its inciting violence or hatred, it is therefore hate speech

So fuck hate speech.

QuoteThe arguments and examples you have used (e.g. 'rape capital sweden', 'immigrants are ruining europe') are repeatedly, and largely exclusively made by alt-right groups.

Sweden being a rape capitol is factual though. Are facts racist now? Are facts Islamophobic?

QuoteAs for your policies, I'm not sure what they are - you don't seem to mention any.

-halt immigration into europe immediately, deport all refugees (throw them into their original countries by force if necessary)
-make all refugees require paperwork
-put in assimilation program
-require refugees be productive in some way

that would be a start...

QuoteNo, they do not. Retarded may have once been a medical term, but is now only used as a derogatory term

This is moving the goal post over decades though : you see, retard was medical, and then people use retard as an insult to indicate someone is mentally impaired. Thus its switched to mentally ill to "get away from stigma", but then stigma follows, because its NOT the word, its what the word means, and you can never remove stigma from someone being mentally handicapped, or mentally ill, or whathaveyou.

QuoteYes. So can jews.

So people who "hate jews niggers and faggots" welcome "jews niggers and faggots"?

I don't follow but, I feel like you are conflating neonazis with people who support fair treatment of whites, or who are simply politically incorrect. By your logic ben shapiro, an orthadox jew (and an amazing speaker) is a white supremacist.

But again, you've never defined white supremacist so don't be mad at me taking awful guesses when you FORCE me to guess what you are on about..

QuoteThey (or at least the ones I recognise) are part of the alt-right movement

DEFINE ALT RIGHT

are you alt right? how do I KNOW you aren't alt right, or a neonazi unless you define it?

QuoteIf you're not going to listen anyway, that doesn't seem like a very useful exercise. But thanks for confirming my suspicions.

This is just proof to me you are full of shit talking about nothing and equivocating BS with no meaning. You have as much proof me being alt right or a neonazi as I have proof you being a neonazi.

Define it or shut up.

QuoteI agree!

I take this as confirmation then that you think BLM is a black supremacist terrorist organization.

QuoteFirst off, what you're doing can hardly be described as debating

I cannot debate if you refuse to make any points : this is more a questionnaire directed at me than a debate, as you refuse to answer so many question, and equivocate half your posts. Blame yourself.

QuoteHaving a debate does not preclude bigotry. Some debates are bigotted, and one could argue should not be had.

But who judges this? Whos to say the person shutting down the debate themselves are not bigoted against these """bigoted""" views? Its open wide for abuse to anyone in power. Basically if you are in power, you can shut a discussion down by calling it bigoted : which is a huge problem in much of Europe. Plus, lots of Europeans DO NOT want immigrants : why is there no respect for the will of the citizens?

QuoteThere's some legitimate arguments to be had there, but none of these countries are even close to 'the brink of collapse

You missed the part about swedens police force didn't you? maybe bother to read the damn links and watch the videos... Besides that, how close to we need to get to collapse before we start deporting these idiots?

As for Ferguson, this was actually incited by the BLM terrorist group over a justified killing of michael brown : an idiot who stole from a store, assaulted the clerk, tried to turn the gun on the cop, and got killed for acting like a prick.

You also must keep in mind police in the USA are better armed, so the "smaller" riot is actually more damaging in the big scheme of things, because citizens do not have firearms, and police aren't as well armed.

Quotedebunked

Upon looking around myself, seems you have SOME merit to this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden

Though I think an exerpt of this explains more, in that marital rape is considered in many non-harmful cases.

Guess its more an issue with feminism having the rape rate elevated, but immigrant rape rates are still elevated.

Quotelies and misinformation spread by the alt-right

hellhole and going to shit are infinitely subjective, so you cannot even say this is disinformation : at best you can say this is a shitty opinion. But considering police are overwhelmed by riots and gun crime is happening despite gun control existing there, I would say these are signs its going to shit.

QuoteI've provided evidence from a credible source

And I examined the source and thats what I could find out of it : less corruption, and more "civil liberties" which I don't recall even finding a definition for

But lets examine quantifiable things

United states : Can freely speak as you wish without censorship. At most if you openly call for someones death you might get talked to, but thats not as common as sweden. Can carry knives, guns on your person, and can use them in self defense. Can fly whatever the hell flag you want

Sweden : Can be arrested for "hate speech" much easier, cannot possess guns or knives on your person, and particularly cannot use them against attackers due to excessive force. You also cannot say, fly certain flags because they are offensive.

Call me strange, but it looks like America has more civil liberties. I would list self defense quite high on the list for civil liberties, whats the point in any others if you cannot protect yourself?

For reference, In the US, anyone can open carry a sword if they want, with certain liberal areas as the exception. So long as its openly displayed, its allowed, so I can literally have a combat knife on my hip for protection and not get in legal trouble

In sweden, last I checked having a knife for defensive means is illegal... and I hear even pepper spray is illegal "without a license".

QuoteI agree, terrorism is worse than car crashes. The goal of terror is not just to get us to do something - it's to frighten, destabilize, separate and ultimately destroy our western societies. Overreacting and creating more fear, prejudices and polarising society doesn't stop terrorism, it actually helps them achieve their aims

Buddy, the goal of terrorism is to dominate and pacify the public to the goal of the terrorists. Are you saying its the goal of terrorists for Europeans to kill immigrants openly in the street?

That doesn't seem like winning to me.

QuoteThe members of the KKK were investigated, arrested, and - after a due trial - convicted. As for as I'm aware, the movement has now been all but eradicated.

I feel like we are getting headway here finally, but this is where you need to examine : it wasn't just registered members of the KKK, it was people who openly supported lynching of black men unprovoked.

And how does this translate into Islam / terrorism?

Theres a LOT of muslims who support honor killings, jihad, sharia law, death for apostates, and other crap. And while they might not be registered ISIS agents, they hold the same views as ISIS and advocate for exactly what ISIS wants too.

This is the problem : you have a shitty ideology. You cannot have a culture which has a mainstream ideology of killing outsiders and viewing non muslims as "less than" and then only punish people who get caught : you MUST address the ideology, especially if its wide spread, and this is why you get anti sharia marches.

QuoteYou asked for sources, so that's the pdf.

Problem is I'm looking for 1 very specific bit of data : how they measured it.

One can argue drug addicts are the happiest people on earth due to having the highest rates of euphoria while high : but that doesn't mean they are happiest.

So its important to examine WHY they say this, WHERE the judgement comes from, and what its based on.

Quoteyes, they can. The press generally enjoys even more freedom to say what it wants than individual citizens do.

I find this ironic. I wonder what they qualifies press. In america press can be anyone with a camera.

I find it strange press gets more rights than citizens, and wonder how they walk that fine line.

QuoteSources, please

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2330180/Woolwich-attacks-Man-charged-making-racist-anti-religious-Facebook-comments-British-soldier-s-death.html

I cannot find the exact thing he said, but it never indicates he was threatening of inciting violence, just "hatred". Seems to me like he was arrested for criticizing Islam, but if you want to cite any sources saying this dude said otherwise... go ahead.

Actually a lot of these cases never show what is said specifically... isn't that a bit strange?

QuoteThese are FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS

Rights are a social construct and only exist as long as its allowed by those involved. immigrants have violated the rights of Europeans, so I see no moral quandary violating rights of immigrants by deporting them or turning them away. At very least, they get a choice not to come here, or to behave while here.

QuoteEven criminals have rights; the right to a fair trial, the right to representation, the right for safety

If you rape a child and its obvious, you should have these rights revoked. Criminals shouldn't always have these rights, it skews the justice system in favor of criminals who are already violating rights of others. If you attack me for instance, this should be counted as voluntarily giving up your right to live. It shouldn't be my fault if you end up dead.

QuoteAgain, that's why I linked the map, which neatly summarizes the argument.

It does not summarize WHY they made these judgements, it just summarizes that the organization declares them more happy because raisins. (typo is on purpose.)

QuoteThe main point of contention here is your assertion that Europe is not free, and the accompanying lies and misinformation you are naievely or willfully spreading.

The issue of freedom is that rallying against islam is extremely discouraged, and citizens do not have right to use violence to defend themselves against attacks from immigrants. This makes the population very vulnerable, and primarily young male immigrants end up ruling things with an iron fist.

Give Europeans the right to carry a firearm and I will see things differently, but at this rate it seems like much of Europe might become entirely Islamic in due time due to this aggression : unless war breaks out, which I support.

QuoteSecond, freedom of speech does not apply here.

When I speak of freedom of speech, I'm not talking about legeslative stuff or rights in law, I'm talking about in PRACTICE, which is the only thing that really matters. Do I have the right to practice free speech on ludeon? Am I allowed? And while law allows it, Tynan and ramsis, and others thus dictate the "law" for this website : thus I am given rights on here, FOR here.

You are calling for a rule which would limit my ability to speak here : which is thus limiting my freedom to do so

this is limiting my freedom to speak here : thus limiting freedom of speech, on this website.

QuoteWhat you're suggesting is essentially to treat all muslims (or even all nationals of a subset of muslim countries) as terrorists.

This is what you do with high risk stuff. You assume its risky until you KNOW it is. Its like a loaded gun, you ALWAYS assume its loaded, unless you made DAMN sure its empty. Doesn't mean there's no such thing as unloaded guns though, you just make sure first.

And I don't think its immoral to do what you said for the sake of protecting people : racism < Terrorism anyday. And if you think such things will cause terrorism, that says a lot about Islam doesn't it?

QuoteSweden and Germany are western, but you haven't shown any evidence of either one criminalizing free speech

The example you showed is STILL limiting free speech. And this isn't counting the cases where poeple are arrested but the posts which they were arrested for were not shown

Its still limiting freedom of speech.

QuoteI'm just speechless.

I'd rather have a bloody war than in 100 years having ethnic Europeans robbed of their homeland.

Sure, it happened with America, and it was shit, but its not going to be undone now : but we can prevent this from happening currently right? But I suppose advocating for European countries to stay majority ethnically European makes me a neonazi right?

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 28, 2017, 04:56:01 PM
I cannot find the exact thing he said, but it never indicates he was threatening of inciting violence, just "hatred". Seems to me like he was arrested for criticizing Islam, but if you want to cite any sources saying this dude said otherwise... go ahead.

You sure have a nice tendency of pulling up these sources that have no relation to topic. Just like in that other post (where you still couldn't prove that Sweden does not allow criticism of Islam), you're still pulling up sources for your claims that do not have any kind of proof about your claims. Unless you know the actual comments that man made (which do not have to be shared by newspapers), you're as clueless as you ever were and you're working on your prejudice. Much like Fluffy, I must say, this stuff only is interesting to me to present a countering view to your BS. I think however that, by now, most people probably have a clear understanding that there's something wrong with you since you can't post anything relevant to back up your wild claims that isn't by Breitbart and other similar sources (which, again, do not actually contain any legit sources for their outlandish claims).

Start posting the sources that actually back your claims up or otherwise don't even bother.

I think the issue you are having is a confusion of policy / ACTIONS.

Sweden has a POLICY against inciting "racial hatred".

however actions under this policy end up arresting people who speak ill of Islam.

The thing making this worse is often data for these things simply cannot be found : stories of people arrested for "spreading hate", but not exactly what they said.

Sure, I could be wrong, but why is there no information on what they said? It could be anything from "islam is a violent religion" to "gas the refugees".

But its important to show WHAT they said.

Don't blame me for not having sources, blame the sources for not being there at all, for WHY EXACTLY people are arrested : sure, there's no explicit evidence it was harmless, but there's no explicit evidence for much of these cases these people were inciting violence either. Theres nowhere near enough transparency, just people arrested in the middle of the night who SUPPOSEDLY made "hateful posts".

many of the cases its merely said they were spreading hate, but never mentions what they said : you are forced to just hope the media isn't exaggerating at all.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-01/us-journalist-investigating-migrant-crime-sweden-has-leave-under-police-escort-his-o

heres another thing to consider when a man tried to investigate sweden for himself, and got intimidated into leaving.

So yeah, I don't trust much mainstream things to say everything is "just fine" in sweden. \

But I guess you would say these are "isolated incidents" or "out of context".

At this point I've stopped reading what you have to say, because I'm only interested with links. And now we have Zerohedge?

I got this theory that maybe he has a whole roulette not only for rhetorical fallacies that he spins to get randomly names to use, but he also has another roulette for wooery sites. We move this time from white supremacist sites to sites that are run by people who are really into Austrian economics. Then again, honestly sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between the two (given how Murray Rothbard, for example, supported nationalism) and that American libertarian ideologue stems from the concept of American exceptionalism (which is not as prevalent ideology as it used to be, but still does outline a lot of the political rhetoric in contemporary US).

Either way, I'm seeing here once again, that no proof has been linked about Sweden (or UK, or Germany, or any other country) instituting laws that make critique of Islam illegal. Because that never happened. And the contents of that article in zerohedge is also nothing special: nobody here or anywhere else has claimed that Sweden is a perfect country or had a perfect immigration policy. Sweden aims at integration (which has, by the way, been far more successful than France which aims at assimilation) but the actual issues with Sweden have a lot to do with how they house immigrants into certain areas. Malmö & Rinkeby being two notorious examples of this. Of course these people aren't integrating well into a society if they can't even participate in the society if they are segregated from the rest of it. I also did mention earlier in this thread, in first page, that there are qualitative differences between countries and immigration policies they have. Alt-right likes to present it as black and white "Either immigration will end up like in Rinkeby or there will be no immigration", which again is simply bullshit. In Finland we do not have Rinkeby or Malmö and our immigration policy works well. EDIT: It's not perfect, we do have challenges of our own. But we don't have heavily racially segregated areas with that much tension. Even closest one, Varissuo, is already being dealt with.

This however, obviously is not a discussion I care to go on forward with in here. It's an interesting issue, but I'd much rather talk about it with sensible people than people who consider Infowars, Breitbart, Zerohedge etc sources as legit sources.

Convenient you stop reading when I ask very important questions you don't have answers to.

And rather than scream about how all these sources aren't legit (genetic fallacy) why not examine the video and make comments?

Seriously even if you hate these places, you might want to examine what they say considering they are being promoted as my argument : I didn't act like some faggot saying your sources were screwed because I didn't trust them, I said they were inconclusive because they were incredibly vague and misleading, or omitting very important data.

Anyways screw your passive aggressive BS : saying theres no proof of something then ignoring the damn post, your acting like a shill.

Heres how it breaks down

If you want to debate, DEBATE, AND ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS

if not, GET OUT OF THE THREAD, as you both are contributing almost nothing to the discussion!

Quote from: mumblemumble on June 28, 2017, 07:13:47 PM
I didn't act like some faggot saying your sources were screwed because I didn't trust them, I said they were inconclusive because they were incredibly vague and misleading, or omitting very important data.

Oh neat, there we go! Enjoy your one two weeks of quiet time mumble, and hopefully when you come back you'll have learned how to behave. Second strike.

Honestly you could also extend that ban from 2 weeks to 2 years. Nothing of value lost tbh.