Immigration discussion

Started by mumblemumble, June 08, 2017, 05:15:23 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Fluffy (l2032)

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.

b0rsuk


milon

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.

mellowautomata

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)

mumblemumble

#49
@ 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???
Why to people worry about following their heart? Its lodged in your chest, you won't accidentally leave it behind.

-----

Its bad because reasons, and if you don't know the reasons, you are horrible. You cannot ask what the reasons are or else you doubt it. But the reasons are irrefutable. Logic.

Fluffy (l2032)

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 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.

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 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, 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, as well as the methodology 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 and the 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.

mumblemumble

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.
Why to people worry about following their heart? Its lodged in your chest, you won't accidentally leave it behind.

-----

Its bad because reasons, and if you don't know the reasons, you are horrible. You cannot ask what the reasons are or else you doubt it. But the reasons are irrefutable. Logic.

mellowautomata

#52
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.

mellowautomata

#53
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:



mumblemumble

#54
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..
Why to people worry about following their heart? Its lodged in your chest, you won't accidentally leave it behind.

-----

Its bad because reasons, and if you don't know the reasons, you are horrible. You cannot ask what the reasons are or else you doubt it. But the reasons are irrefutable. Logic.

Fluffy (l2032)

@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, 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.

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, and has been repeatedly debunked.

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, nor is it going to shit.

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;

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.


mumblemumble

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?
Why to people worry about following their heart? Its lodged in your chest, you won't accidentally leave it behind.

-----

Its bad because reasons, and if you don't know the reasons, you are horrible. You cannot ask what the reasons are or else you doubt it. But the reasons are irrefutable. Logic.

mellowautomata

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.

mumblemumble

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".
Why to people worry about following their heart? Its lodged in your chest, you won't accidentally leave it behind.

-----

Its bad because reasons, and if you don't know the reasons, you are horrible. You cannot ask what the reasons are or else you doubt it. But the reasons are irrefutable. Logic.

mellowautomata

#59
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.