Messages

I certainly think regional laws would be a very interesting premise : laws simply acting as an additional pressure by local factions which effects relationships, trade, and other elements. Its not like disobeying a province laws wouldn't be impossible, but doing so might piss people off if caught, and would form certain reactions from groups which would be sanctioned. Like imprisoning drug smugglers on the road, fining people for sexual immorality, and confiscation of prohibited weapons... Not like you couldn't disobey, say "fuck the police" and either intimidate or incapacitate the enforcers, but doing so would cause some pretty heavy ramifications.

.... You could also go for a regional power grab maybe, overthrowing local government and inserting your own, gathering tax wealth, but also being responsible for everything that goes on afterwards.

Maybe a little too civ style, but I like the idea of the somewhat messy law setup.

If a pawn is fleaing, make them shut open doors behind them automatically.

#34 use an old lady to test the overdose effects of drugs in a testing beta?

(surprisingly the lady survived a week long binge of all the yayo she could intake before collapsing. She passed out a few dozen times, each time waking up to forcibly take more, lasting a week before i gave up.) 

Couldn't you instead make the tornado perhaps check for walls / ceilings within 2 tiles of the tornado, and if so, do no damage, but remove ceilings / damage walls? This way tornados would still be dangerous, but an overpassing tornado won't be an immediate threat to items inside

Anyways I'm for keeping the tornado honestly, but just make it an event reserved for knee capping especially well established people. Its op kinda, but some players are op aren't they?

The problem is, yes it has no counter, but some players need a threat with no hard counter..

It would be interesting seeing a rimworld representation of the brown shirts vs red shirts, and the chaos, rampet drug use, far reaching prostitution and disparity that was a prequel to / catalyst for hitlers rise.

Show not tell mode : an option which removes all notifications of events (raids, joined colonists, weather events, ect) short of select things like things in com range, quests given, ect.

Essentially make the player a little less aware and require more vigilance, and possibly adding more tension when pods land or when you don't know about a raid till they are attacking.

make art FAR more subject to social skill at lower quality. Anyone can sell a jaw dropping statue, but selling a hunk of rock with scribbles on it takes a real silver tongue.

make "dead man appearal" have a 3 hour grace period. I know its a creepy idea, but I think it would be tolerable if the person looked more recently dead, than someone who has been dead for a while : after all, the psychological effect of death "hitting home" sometimes takes a bit, and I think pulling a kevlar vest off a recently shot guy would be ok, but going the next day to grab it would be far more creepy

make mental breaks when someone is starving, needing sleep, wanting drugs, ect, make them do just that, possibly with violent outbursts against anyone who gets in the way, and will disobey any forbidden marks / will do unusual behavior to accomplish it. (eat an small animals after killing it without bothering to butcher it, sleeping on the floor). Get a catharsis bonus only if its achieved to completion (meaning a full sleep without interuption). This would make more sense than a starving person trying to kill someone, rather than just pigging out. If someone is breaking over something they CAN change, it would make sense they act out to CHANGE IT.

Whos to say there wouldn't continue to be religion, even on a glitterworld? What makes you think scientific advancement is mutually exclusive with faith? Does this mean you think christian surgeons or scientists are myths?

This kind of thinking, as well as saying all religious people are irrational is a pretty big form of bigotry, I hope you know.

Also, to those who say they think any religious person is anti intellectual, it sounds like you've never talked to more than a dozen religious people, and conflate stupidity (which exists everywhere) with religion.

As for diversity, I still think a dynamic system of morphing, changing psyche of the pawns would be great for this : pawns gaining / getting over fears, developing character traits through significant events / correlations of positive / negative feedback... as it stands now, everything seems rather static, rather than fluid, even addiction : I would say addiction would be more gradual, in how it becomes an addiction, its withdrawal, ect. Make anybody capable of being any kind of person under the right circumstances, with age locking people into their ways a bit. This would cause divirsity which isn't "random", and has a method to the madness... Course, I figure people will fight over what the methods are CAUSING the madness.

As for "racial hatred" I think its important to segregate caution towards outsiders of the "group" (racial, religious, political ect) and out and out hatred, as they are very different. Everyone who isn't trained to do otherwise is cautious over the unknown, and tends to value their own kin slightly more, but this isn't racism. I also think the above method would work great, as you can see WHY a pawn developed racial hatred in their life : maybe they were in a xenophobic group, maybe they experiences a very negative experience with that race, and lump everyone in : just like it happens in real life.

And another important thing : is to distinguish causing FACTORS from things which "always cause". Bullets to the head are a causing FACTOR in death, but obviously not everyone shot in the head dies. So saying things which others said might cause you problems didn't cause you problems is an anecdote, where as we should base decisions on larger amounts of data and trends we notice, correlations and such.

This entire thing boils down to this. If you cant keep your cool, and refrain from being a whiney little asshat when someone else has a differing opinion from you, then you need to leave the internet, or society in general, until a point which you can be respectful of others rights to their own opinions, and can have an open discussion involving somethig which effects everyone, calmly.

Be an adult, not an entitled little nancy boy/girl/what ever the fuck you are.

I would like to add onto that, don't enter into a discussion if you refuse to read what other people say : this is a huge problem, where people ignore other peoples valid points then act like they are wrong.

If you want to debate, DEBATE

if you are going to half ass it, get lost.

this has been an issue for a long time on here, people accusing others of racism, sexism, homophobia, or any others in a laundry list of labels as an argument, and then refusing to address the points brought forward.

You cannot say someone has an invalid point if you refuse to address the point brought forward.

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!

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".

The idea of surviving several gunshot wounds makes sense : some people can get shot lots of times to non vital areas and survive just fine, if with less blood in them

I also agree about the percentage based system : Xcom handled this nicely, where armor had a default block amount and weapons had a random range of damage to them as well : this meant that for instance, kevlar could potentially 100% block a pistol round without any trauma, but due to the randomness, it wasn't always reliable if the block occurred, or if the round slightly penetrated.

There was also code in place where excessive blows would still wear down the armor even if it didn't go through, so firing a mini-gun at someone with Kevlar wasn't completely useless, but would eventually chew through it.

This would be interesting, but would certainly need re-balancing : would also be interesting if maybe power armor could stop rounds, but would potentially leave bruised : imagine someone with a broken neck from being shot in the face with a sniper rifle, because the helmet blocked it, but the force made their neck snap

....also this has gone HORRIBLY  off topic, but its also good discussion.

Maybe instead we could get a forum thread JUST for politics, so politics is potentially removed from "unwanted places" and is still allowed?

Also to clarify the comment on freedom of speech, its not that fluffy is advocating the removal of my first amendment right, its that my ability to EXERCISE it would be removed here

A right is pointless if it cannot be exercised, which is why I'm saying he would be removing that freedom : currently I have a freedom to post such things on here, and this freedom to post  this here would be stripped away with this rule. This doesn't mean my first amendment right is completely revoked but it DOES mean my overall "freedom" is diminished within the scope of this website.

Either way though, banning political discussion on the website would be an absolute nightmare : people getting posts edited, removed, possibly banned for legit discussion, and disagreements abound about what is / is not political, or if it was relevant to a topic if it indeed can be viewed. Heck, hypothetically if rimworld got banned in a country, debating THAT would be political, but also incredibly on topic...

This slope is super slippery guys.

no 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.

rarely 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.

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.

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

As 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...

No, 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.

Yes. 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..

They (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?

If 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.

I agree!

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

First 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.

Having 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?

There'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.

debunked

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.

lies 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.

I'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".

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

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.

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.

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.

You 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.

yes, 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.

Sources, 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?

These 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.

Even 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.

Again, 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.)

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.

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.

Second, 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.

What 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?

Sweden 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.

I'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?

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?

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?

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.

Your own actions

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

writing 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.

NSDAP

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.

assault

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

you'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.

There'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.

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.

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.

facebook 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.

If 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.

Brevik

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?

article

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.

Do 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.

Childish 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..