That isn't possible. You linked dozens of different threads. You can't just count the time copy pasting and ignore the hours you spent drudging this shit.
Why do you people always do that, the fake saccharine niceness thing.
Whenever you’re losing an argument (which is all the time) it’s always “I hope you feel better soon” or something. Is that supposed to be a special tactic or something?
Also you do realize that’s the reason you guys are called NPC’s- you all literally say the same things, on cue, every time.
I would suggest you put down the “how to argue like a communist” playbook and think for yourself. you might start actually changing minds.
Listen you fuckheads. I've collected a list of people literally supporting or justifying this fucking mass murder of innocent people, and all you nazis care about is how long the list took me?
Guy, you literally post on /r/AgainstHateSubreddit, one of the most hypocritical & vile cesspools on reddit.
​
You think people don't notice? We all know people like you can have bias and be ideological driven, but it's very clear that you're not even trying to pretend to be neutral.
​
Your path to the inevitable evergorwing censorship of wrongthink is obvious. I've been on reddit far too long and have seen too many cases of mods like you when they manage to take over a popular and influential subreddit.
Felix himself will probably won't even object, if only he was 1/3 of an "alt-righter" as the majority of leftists think, the same leftist that are currently sending him countless death treats on twitter and have made pewdieple follow ALL the people he was following on twitter, (like the very problematic Lauren Southern) because the deranged people were also harassing those people and creating a mob.
No one thinks this is Felix fault, not even the brain-dead people harassing him and his ex-follows.
​
They just HATE him because he followed people with right-wing views on twitter, and view this massacre just as another great opportunity to dogphile on him and defame him even more.
​
These are the types of people who frequents /r/AgainstHateSubreddits and /r/ChapoTrapHouse, but don't take my words for it, go see the twitter of the mods of that place and the vile shit they say about the man the subrredit you run is about.
​
The reason they don't get banned is pretty obvious bias from the admins(some of witch i even used to be "palls" with before). /r/MillionDollarExtreme and /r/CringeAnarchy where both banned and quarantined for FAR less then targeted harassment and death threats.
There you go, you're finally starting to not sound like a passive aggressive prissy cunt, so you're making improvements. Granted, considering I've said multiple times I want to have the shooter executed and called td a bunch of retards on multiple occasions you're gonna have a hard time pegging me as being in their side.
Still, I understand why you have to. It can't just be that your hobby is pathetic and retarded, if we mock you it HAS to be because we're nazis.
You you hate christian people huh you piece of shit? You honestly think that bringing up the fact that Muslims have killed far more Christians mean you justify murder? Get some mental help
Loads of these threads are just T_D talking about muslim terror attacks anyway, you should've had the good sense to stick to actual hate threads instead. Especially with the very first entry in the list just being a news report about 120 christians being killed by muslim extremists, you just look like a retard who doesn't want these things to be discussed because they make you uncomfortable.
It amazes me people spend their time obsessing over things they don't like instead of just enjoying the things they do like and ignoring the other stuff.
All that guy has managed to accomplish is a list of posts about muslim hate / terror attacks. Logically, the admins should ban every muslim subreddit as a result if this excellent lust.
"Value" is irrelevant. While I understand that private companies can limit whatever they want - just because you don't like a conversation doesn't mean you get to tell people they cannot have it. You have to go out of your way to go into that sub to be offended. Don't...go...there?
Some guy just killed 49 people and his manifesto is awfully similar to the stuff that gets posted on that sub daily. If it was all harmless I’d be fine with it. I have little to no problem with r/conservative for example because although I think they say some stupid shit, they don’t defend terrorists and their ideals.
I think that there are a lot of people - especially on reddit that put too much stock into words and messages. That they believe that just being around that messaging is actually what causes violence. I believe it is someone's real world experiences that cause them to do something radical - not internet words or messaging.
Spreading the message certainly doesn’t help. The only difference between T_D users and the NZ shooters is that instead of just talking about how they hate brown people online, they decided to do something about it.
Both but specifically the former. It’s unfortunate that people hold these views but you can’t police people’s thoughts. The problem is that people share these views, especially considering the amount of misinformation spread on that sub. They spread hate and encourage it. When you spend all day talking about how Muslims are invading your country, it’s only natural that the next step is someone decides to take action. They are encouraging acts of terror but they won’t admit it.
It is kind of like the endless back and forth on reddit about scientific data and anecdotal experience. Sure peer reviewed scientific data is important and objective. However, experiences are important too, you see, taste, smell, and feel them. If there are people out there that have had negative experiences for example with Islam or Muslims, they should be able to express it. To just deplatform such a thing is to totally discredit someone's life experiences - in my opinion is more dangerous in the long run. I believe most people that engage in radical mass murder type behavior - do it because they are desperate and want to be heard.
At the same time they also validate each other’s ideals. Having a bad experience with Muslims doesn’t mean it’s ok to generalize billions of people. However instead of being told this isn’t ok, the go to their safe space and pat each other on the back and tell each other that they’re right. They get comfortable because they have millions of other people telling them it’s ok to be racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc.
Yes, echo chambers are generally not good - doesn't mean we should ban them. Also - banning everyone with different ideas than yourself slowly creates your own echo chamber...
Bro. You actually believe that? Maybe read the entire thing that completely contradicts that. That’s like me saying “I’m not racist but I fucking hate black people.” Does me saying I’m not racist excuse the other part?
Bro. You actually believe that? Maybe read the entire thing that completely contradicts that. That’s like me saying “I’m not racist but I fucking hate black people.” Does me saying I’m not racist excuse the other part?
No faith required, it is literally the second sentence....
Dude literally said that Muslim people had it coming because they shouldn’t be in western/Eurocentric countries and that there should be no blame placed on the shooters ideology (nationalism). If you don’t see the problem with that this argument isn’t worth either of our time. I’m done. I’ve got to wait like 5 minutes between every comment on this shithole sub lol.
He condemned the attack in the second fucking sentence of the statement
And Immediately followed up with a “however” and proceeded to explain how the shooter’s ideology wasn’t wrong, and that his hate for Muslims and desire to remove them is extremely valid and he agrees.
yes, if you call non-believers apostates and run them over with a truck, crazy people will retaliate
Ah yes. All 1.5 BILLION yes billion with a B Muslims are bad because of the actions of less than 100 extremists who have committed acts of terror in the past decade. That would be like me saying Christians don’t belong in the United States because the commit the majority of crimes.
Of course, nationalism - a philosophy that has existed since time and memorial is not to blame. The media stoking violence is to blame.
Nationalism absolutely is to blame. The idea of white nationalism is that certain areas belong to Europeans and anybody else is an invader. He talks about it for 70 pages in his manifesto. And it’s the same shit the autists on /pol/ and T_D talk about. “Muslims are taking over our country,” “Swedistan,” “White Genocide.” And the media stoking violence? What the fuck does that even mean? How can you say this was the media’s fault when the shooter said himself that he did it to rid the west of foreign invaders, and was a self-proclaimed ethno-nationalist.
And Immediately followed up with a “however” and proceeded to explain how the shooter’s ideology wasn’t wrong, and that his hate for Muslims and desire to remove them is extremely valid and he agrees.
I already debunked this. Stop rephrasing it and come up with a new argument.
Ah yes. All 1.5 BILLION yes billion with a B Muslims are bad because of the actions of less than 100 extremists who have committed acts of terror in the past decade. That would be like me saying Christians don’t belong in the United States because the commit the majority of crimes.
I never said that, nor did Aggin say this. Why are you presenting a strawman?
Nationalism absolutely is to blame. The idea of white nationalism is that certain areas belong to Europeans and anybody else is an invader. He talks about it for 70 pages in his manifesto. And it’s the same shit the autists on /pol/ and T_D talk about. “Muslims are taking over our country,” “Swedistan,” “White Genocide.” And the media stoking violence? What the fuck does that even mean? How can you say this was the media’s fault when the shooter said himself that he did it to rid the west of foreign invaders, and was a self-proclaimed ethno-nationalist.
Yes. Multiculturalism has consequences. Extremists combined with the socialism and legacy media stocking racial violence is to blame. Nationalism is defined by prioritizing the needs of your own country is not to blame. Do you think the Islamic State wants globalism? Sure - under their regime. Use your fucking head.
I already debunked this. Stop rephrasing it and come up with a new argument.
No. No you didn’t you keep saying “He CoNdEmNs HiM iN tHe SeCoNd LiNe,” and haven’t said a word about the two paragraphs succeeding it where he places all of the blame on innocent Muslims because they don’t belong in that country. Kinda sounds familiar, that is if you read the manifesto.
I never said that, nor did Aggin say this. Why are you presenting a strawman?
“yes, if you call non-believers apostates and run them over with a truck, crazy people will retaliate”
That’s a direct quote from you, saying that killing 50 innocent people is a natural reaction to extremists that make up less that 1% of the religion. No strawman here. Find a new slant.
Yes. Multiculturalism has consequences. Extremists combined with the socialism and legacy media stocking racial violence is to blame. Nationalism is defined by prioritizing the needs of your own country is not to blame. Do you think the Islamic State wants globalism? Sure - under their regime. Use your fucking head.
I don’t even know where to start with this. This is complete nonsense.
For one, there are no consequences to multiculturalism for normal people. Me and all the other normal people have no problem living side by side with people from different cultures. Only racist snowflakes who feel for some reason their race is entitled to a piece of land have a problem with Multiculturalism.
For two what in God’s name does socialism have to do with this? No parties involved in this event were socialist and socialism has nothing to do with anything we’ve previously discussed.
For three what the fuck is does legacy media stocking racial violence supposed to mean? Are you saying the media inspired the shooter commit his attacks or...? Not really following.
For four Nationalism is a problem because it means that any foreigners entering the country don’t belong. The natural next step from which is forcefully removing them, which is exactly what the NZ terrorist did.
For five here you go again bringing up shit that’s completely irrelevant. Who said anything about the Islamic state wants? Why does it matter what the Islamic state wants? How does what the Islamic state wants relevant to anything we’ve previously talked about? Stop moving the goalposts and let’s try to stay on topic.
No. No you didn’t you keep saying “He CoNdEmNs HiM iN tHe SeCoNd LiNe,” and haven’t said a word about the two paragraphs succeeding it where he places all of the blame on innocent Muslims because they don’t belong in that country. Kinda sounds familiar, that is if you read the manifesto.
I did. I said that the islam has caused violence and it would be natural to expect a reaction.
That’s a direct quote from you, saying that killing 50 innocent people is a natural reaction to extremists that make up less that 1% of the religion. No strawman here. Find a new slant.
I never said that everyone bound to the islamic faith strives to run people over with a truck
For one, there are no consequences to multiculturalism for normal people. Me and all the other normal people have no problem living side by side with people from different cultures.
Reality proves you wrong. The NZ incident proves you wrong. The islamic attacks in Europe prove you wrong.
Nice ad hominem, i'll just call checkmate on this one.
Only racist snowflakes who feel for some reason their race is entitled to a piece of land have a problem with Multiculturalism.
No. People trying to protect their culture. Which is 90% of the planet.
For two what in God’s name does socialism have to do with this? No parties involved in this event were socialist and socialism has nothing to do with anything we’ve previously discussed.
That was an autocorrect on my phone which I edited. I meant to say social media and legacy media
For three what the fuck is does legacy media stocking racial violence supposed to mean? Are you saying the media inspired the shooter commit his attacks or...? Not really following.
When CNN and BBC blame people that have a specific skin color for the economic or situational problems of some other race, or in other words succumb to identitarianism they stoke the radicalism. I blame them 100% for the racial divisions within our society today.
For four Nationalism is a problem because it means that any foreigners entering the country don’t belong. The natural next step from which is forcefully removing them, which is exactly what the NZ terrorist did.
Immigration is enforced all over the world. That's a component of nationalism.
For five here you go again bringing up shit that’s completely irrelevant. Who said anything about the Islamic state wants? Why does it matter what the Islamic state wants? How does what the Islamic state wants relevant to anything we’ve previously talked about? Stop moving the goalposts and let’s try to stay on topic.
I did. You're utopian world view is impossible and will cause societal features in its implementation. Let cultures develop on their own and stop stoking racial tensions online. Be a better person.
I did. I said that the islam has caused violence and it would be natural to expect a reaction.
Islam has caused nothing. A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists.
I never said that everyone bound to the islamic faith strives to run people over with a truck
“I did. I said that the islam has caused violence and it would be natural to expect a reaction.” You sure do place a lot of blame on people who have nothing to do with those attacks.
Reality proves you wrong. The NZ incident proves you wrong. The islamic attacks in Europe prove you wrong.
No. It proves me right. A small group of bigots commit those attacks while the majority have no problems with multiculturalism. The fault isn’t with multiculturalism because most people get along just fine without committing acts of terror. The problem is with those people.
No. People trying to protect their culture. Which is 90% of the planet.
You got a source for that? Or are we just throwing out random numbers we made up to try and support our arguments?
When CNN and BBC blame people that have a specific skin color for the economic or situational problems of some other race, or in other words succumb to identitarianism they stoke the radicalism. I blame them 100% for the racial divisions within our society today.
So rather than blame society for creating racial divides (Slavery, Jim Crow, and the overall sentiments of racism they have left behind), you blame the media for acknowledging they exist. Because racism is alive and well. I’ve had multiple people maliciously call me a nigger to my face in the past year. I’ve heard people talk about how spics and sand niggers are ruining the country. Just because you want to ignore these things doesn’t mean they don’t exist. They, the racists are the reason racial division exists because they are the only ones who have a problem with racial unity.
Immigration is enforced all over the world. That's a component of nationalism.
Nationalism and Globalism are not black and white. There is a large grey area in between. Obviously we have to make some sacrifices for the good of our country, but pure nationalism is a complete disregard for anybody outside of your nation. Which is a problem.
I did. You're utopian world view is impossible and will cause societal features in its implementation. Let cultures develop on their own and stop stoking racial tensions online. Be a better person.
Cultures are developing on their own. Just like how the Muslims in NZ who let me remind you, are there legally, were naturally changing and developing the culture over there.
Wanting people to not prejudge millions of others based on the actions of a few isn’t an unreasonable request or a utopian world view. It’s common sense. I don’t see why we should stop striving for tolerance because a few bigots have a problem with it. They can fuck off.
And how is me saying that people of different cultures and races should be able to live together in harmony stoking racial tensions? If anything it’s the exact opposite.
Islam has caused nothing. A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists.
Considering there are 1.5 billion people practicing Islam and you gave me less than 100 attacks, no that isn’t checkmate, you just proved my point. I counted 64 attacks. 64/1.5 billion is 4.26666667 * 10-8, or 0.000004267%. Also known as as small percent.
That’s 0.003711% of Europe’s Muslim population in 2017 and 0.003779% in 2016. Again. Small percentage. Are you gonna actually come through with a valid argument or keep providing statistics that prove my point then try to change the subject?
705 out of 44 mil arrested for terrorism = 1.6/100,000 = 160x higher than right wingers
265 out of 44 mil commit/plan to commit terrorist attacks = 0.6/100,000 = 240x higher than right wingers
Now support your original statement that T_D supports the mass murderer in NZ, or GTFO
At no point did I say Muslims didn’t commit acts of terror at a higher rate than anybody else. I said not all Muslims are terrorists and that it’s a very small percentage committing these acts and the majority of them are completely innocent. Which I proved three times over using statistics you provided. Stop changing the subject and putting words in my mouth.
I said not all Muslims are terrorists and that it’s a very small percentage committing these acts and the majority of them are completely innocent. Which I proved three times over using statistics you provided.
Great - I never made that point. All I said was that forced multiculturalism has been a disaster.
Stop changing the subject and putting words in my mouth.
That's hilarious projection - considering:
A. I never made the accusation that all Muslims are radical terrorists, although you seem to be adamant that T_D fully supports the NZ massacre, despite not having any evidence to support that allegation
B. You are the one changing the topic
Since you're so adept at mental gymnastics, and you're so willing to to cover for muh peaceful Muslims, wrap your head around this one ....
I said and I quote "Islam has caused nothing. A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists."
You then said checkmate implying that was incorrect and linked This image proving my point so yes, you did make that point.
you seem to be adamant that T_D fully supports the NZ massacre, despite not having any evidence to support that allegation
Already linked you a post but you can't seem to realize the problem with it so whatever
you're so willing to to cover for muh peaceful Muslims
Considering less than 0.01 percent of Muslims are responsible for terror attacks I'd say the majority are peaceful
Since you're so adept at mental gymnastics, and you're so willing to to cover for muh peaceful Muslims, wrap your head around this one ....
Everybody surveyed lives in either Asia or Africa. Why do their views on and in relation to western society matter? They don't live here. The section at the bottom about Muslims in America says "When that survey is compared with the global survey of Muslims, some key differences emerge between U.S. Muslims and Muslims in other countries. In general, American Muslims are more at ease in the contemporary world." That seems more relevant than the opinions of people living thousands of miles away.
I said and I quote "Islam has caused nothing. A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists."
I understand that you tried to deflect from supporting your original statement
You then said checkmate implying that was incorrect and linked This image proving my point so yes, you did make that point.
Yes, responding to a statement that you made that was a deflection from your original position. I never implied that all muslims were extremists - that was a strawman concocted by you to move the argument away from 'T_D supported the NZ massacre"
Already linked you a post but you can't seem to realize the problem with it so whatever
Where the second sentence basically disavows the shooter, proving you wrong .....
You then go ahead to jump through mental hula hoops to and mind reading to try and justify your confirmation bias, that T_D supports terrorism.
Considering less than 0.01 percent of Muslims are responsible for terror attacks I'd say the majority are peaceful
Sure they are. But a large percentage thinks that western culture, rights for women rights for gays is abhorrent and immoral. They aren't exactly holding vigils and wearing the west's equivalent of "hijabs" when a truck runs over innocents in Nice - now are they?
Everybody surveyed lives in either Asia or Africa. Why do their views on and in relation to western society matter? They don't live here. The section at the bottom about Muslims in America says "When that survey is compared with the global survey of Muslims, some key differences emerge between U.S. Muslims and Muslims in other countries. In general, American Muslims are more at ease in the contemporary world." That seems more relevant than the opinions of people living thousands of miles away.
But they do live here. Millions are coming into Europe every year and they hate you, they hate your liberal views, they hate women, they hate gays and they hate jews, they consider you an apostate.
Now tell me - how the fuck is multiculturalism going to solve that?
Yes, responding to a statement that you made that was a deflection from your original position.
What have I deflected? I showed you post from T_D supporting the shooter, you said it didn't support the shooter. That's like me saying the sky is blue, showing you a blue sky, then you tell me the sky is red. If you can't see that the sky is blue I can't help you.
I never implied that all muslims were extremists - that was a strawman concocted by you to move the argument away from 'T_D supported the NZ massacre"
"I said that the islam has caused violence and it would be natural to expect a reaction." - Direct quote from you claiming that the religion of Islam causes violence. Stop saying strawman when you clearly have no idea what it means.
You sure are trying hard to prove they aren't seeing as how these are your responses to me saying most Muslims are peaceful and only a handful of extremists are violent
But a large percentage thinks that western culture, rights for women rights for gays is abhorrent and immoral.
That's unfortunate but those people don't live in the west so why do their beliefs affect us? Not to mention the amount of Christians who think rights for gays and eastern culture are abhorrent.
But they do live here. Millions are coming into Europe every year and they hate you, they hate your liberal views, they hate women, they hate gays and they hate jews, they consider you an apostate.
Well, no, the people in this survey were from Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Palestinian territories, Russia, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan. Of the people from the U.S. that were surveyed the author of the article said "When that survey is compared with the global survey of Muslims, some key differences emerge between U.S. Muslims and Muslims in other countries. In general, American Muslims are more at ease in the contemporary world." Could it be that the Muslims who hate westerners don't go to the west just like the westerners who hate Muslims don't go to the Middle East?
As far as them hating me, so what? I've had white people call me a nigger, black people call me a cracker, conservatives call me a libtard, and Christians say I'm a sinner who's going to hell. But I don't have a problem with white people as a whole, black people as a whole, conservatives as a whole, or Christians as a whole. When you get a group of millions of people you can't generalize their views. So stop generalizing their views.
Now tell me - how the fuck is multiculturalism going to solve that?
Can't really speak on Europe but at least in the U.S., multiculturalism is the norm. The country is made up of immigrants who merged cultures. Now, the U.S. isn't perfect but I'd say multiculturalism worked out alright here. And like I said before, normal people don't have a problem with people from different cultures. Bigots do. And you proceeded to pull out a completely made up statistic about how 90% of people are against multiculturalism.
When I talk to you about preserving culture, I am not referring to white nationalism, that's YOUR strawman - I am referring to western classical liberalism.
Classical liberalism refers to economics and is the idea that the economy should be free and unregulated. It has absolutely nothing to do with nationalism or globalism. Stop saying strawman, you don't know what it means. I didn't bring up white nationalism for no reason, I mentioned it because it was explicitly stated in the NZ shooter's manifesto and is a viewpoint that's become increasingly popular, mainly on the right wing. You can call it whatever you want, but the idea of protecting the white race and white countries from foreigners is white nationalism.
You have deflected repeatedly from supporting the original comment claiming that T_D supported the NZ terrorist
I proved you wrong (easy) and now you’ve moved onto all these non-related strawman arguments like me claiming that all 1.8 billion Islamic followers are terrorists.
You have deflected repeatedly from supporting the original comment claiming that T_D supported the NZ terrorist
No I haven't. I've referenced it in almost every comment including the one you are responding to.
I proved you wrong (easy)
No you didn't. You have put forth no facts supporting your argument and the few facts you have put forth actually support my arguments. Don't know if you know anything about debates but you need evidence to back up your claim.
you’ve moved onto all these non-related strawman arguments like me claiming that all 1.8 billion Islamic followers are terrorists
For the love of god please stop saying strawman. You have no idea what it means and are using it incorrectly. A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. I've misrepresented nothing and everything I've said is in response to things you've said.
In this comment you said quote, "I did. I said that the islam has caused violence and it would be natural to expect a reaction."
I then responded in this comment saying quote, "Islam has caused nothing. A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists."
You then quoted that in this comment and responded with this image with the caption "checkmate", implying you disproved my previous statement which was and I quote "Islam has caused nothing. A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists."
I then debunked your counterargument in this comment by pointing out that based on information you provided, only 0.000004267% of Muslims are involved in acts of terror, proving that my statement which was quote, "A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists," to be correct because 0.000004267% is an extremely small percentage.
You then responded in this comment with a link to these statistics trying to prove my that my point which was and I quote,"A small percentage of extremists have caused violence," wrong. Why else would you link these statistics if not to disprove that statement? Anyways I again use your statistics to show that of the 19 million Muslims living in the EU, only 0.003779% were involved in terrorist acts in 2016 and 0.003711% in 2017, which is like I said, a small percentage.
In this comment you change the subject and put forth the claim that Muslims commit acts of terror at a higher rate (a claim that I at no point tried to refute). If anything this is you strawmanning me by intentionally misunderstanding my argument which was and I quote, "A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists."
You then said in this comment quote, "Great - I never made that point. All I said was that forced multiculturalism has been a disaster," referring to me saying, "I said not all Muslims are terrorists and that it’s a very small percentage committing these acts and the majority of them are completely innocent. Which I proved three times over using statistics you provided," in this comment. Except you did make that point in this comment when you said quote, "I did. I said that the islam has caused violence," blaming the ideology for the acts of a small percentage of extremists.
You then move on from that and bring up this study referencing the beliefs of Muslims in the countries of Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Palestinian territories, Russia, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan, which are completely irrelevant to and in no way indicative of the beliefs of Muslims in the U.S. and Europe. As a matter of fact, that same article you linked said of Muslims in America, ""When that survey is compared with the global survey of Muslims, some key differences emerge between U.S. Muslims and Muslims in other countries. In general, American Muslims are more at ease in the contemporary world."
So now that I've provided you with extensive evidence that I have made no strawman arguments and was only responding to statements you've made, you can stop using it as a defense.
No you doofus - the freedom of speech, association and markets
Freedom of speech, association, and markets have nothing to do with nationalism or globalism, so why the ideology of Classical Liberalism is relevant when it says nothing about immigration and Nationalism, I have no idea. And doofus. That's nice. Those 1st grade insults really support your claims.
No I haven't. I've referenced it in almost every comment including the one you are responding to.
and you are incorrect - the link that you provided does not support your conclusions.
For the love of god please stop saying strawman. You have no idea what it means and are using it incorrectly. A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. I've misrepresented nothing and everything I've said is in response to things you've said.
Then why the fuck are you responding to a simple question with 500 word essays? You are unable to support your original claim that T_D supported the psychopath that caused the NZ massacre. Furthermore, you seem unable to denounce the violence on both sides and concede that Islamic terrorism instigates psychopaths from murdering innocents on BOTH sides.
You then said in this comment quote, "Great - I never made that point. All I said was that forced multiculturalism has been a disaster," referring to me saying, "I said not all Muslims are terrorists and that it’s a very small percentage committing these acts and the majority of them are completely innocent. Which I proved three times over using statistics you provided," in this comment. Except you did make that point in this comment when you said quote, "I did. I said that the islam has caused violence," blaming the ideology for the acts of a small percentage of extremists.
Yes. Integrating a traditionally anti-liberal culture with a liberal one has been a disaster, unless of course you are willing to accept that the level of violence committed on BOTH sides is an acceptable tradeoff. We are not talking about Vietnamese restaurants here.
In general, American Muslims are more at ease in the contemporary world.
That's fantastic - although the ones currently immigrating are not, it's only the ones that have been here for decades.
Freedom of speech, association, and markets have nothing to do with nationalism or globalism, so why the ideology of Classical Liberalism is relevant when it says nothing about immigration and Nationalism, I have no idea. And doofus. That's nice. Those 1st grade insults really support your claims.
They do when your national culture relies on classical liberalist ideals ya doofus.
and you are incorrect - the link that you provided does not support your conclusions.
Senator Anning said quote, "The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place. Let us be clear, while Muslims may have been the victims today, usually they are the perpetrators. World-wide, Muslims are killing people in the name of their faith on an industrial scale. The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. It is the religious equivalent of fascism. And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless."
TL;DR The 49 people that died had it coming because a small group of extremists they have likely never met before have committed acts of terror in the name of their faith so it's their fault.
He places blame on innocent people and defends the shooter's motive.
Then why the fuck are you responding to a simple question with 500 word essays?
That's what happens when you actually support your arguments
You are unable to support your original claim that T_D supported the psychopath that caused the NZ massacre.
See above. At the very least the support the motive, if not the action.
Furthermore, you seem unable to denounce the violence on both sides and concede that Islamic terrorism instigates psychopaths from murdering innocents on BOTH sides.
Can I get a link to any comment where I have defended Islamic terrorists? I've been trying to defend the innocent people who have no involvement with terrorism. Just to be safe here's a formal condemnation of Islamic terrorists.
I condemn any and all Islamic terrorists and there actions.
Cool. Moving on.
Yes. Integrating a traditionally anti-liberal culture with a liberal one has been a disaster, unless of course you are willing to accept that the level of violence committed on BOTH sides is an acceptable tradeoff. We are not talking about Vietnamese restaurants here.
Why are you placing blame on the innocent people integrating into the culture rather than the extremists who can't handle the integration?
Also worth noting that the point of that section was to show you an example of you saying that Islam causes violence in spite of the fact you've since gone on to deny saying its.
That's fantastic - although the ones currently immigrating are not, it's only the ones that have been here for decades.
Well they had to have immigrated at some point. They haven't always been here for decades.
They do when your national culture relies on classical liberalist ideals ya doofus.
Rather than continuing to insult me maybe you could find somewhere in traditional classical liberal ideals in support of strict Nationalism.
Also seeing as how you didn't mention it, I'm assuming you are done with the whole strawman thing seeing as how I typed an 800 word comment completely debunking the idea? You kinda skated around it.
Senator Anning said quote, "The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place. Let us be clear, while Muslims may have been the victims today, usually they are the perpetrators. World-wide, Muslims are killing people in the name of their faith on an industrial scale. The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. It is the religious equivalent of fascism. And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless."
I don't see any support for the NZ murderer in that paragraph - I see equal denouncement of both sides which is the correct position.
Try again.
He places blame on innocent people and defends the shooter's motive.
I would have worded it differently, but in that is a far cry from full support for the murder of 49 people.
I condemn any and all Islamic terrorists and there actions.
Good.
Why are you placing blame on the innocent people integrating into the culture rather than the extremists who can't handle the integration?
I'm not. I am placing blame on individuals that do not support western liberal values, immigrating to these countries and then trying to change that system, both politically and violently.
I have zero problems with anyone coming to the united states (my resident country) legally and through the same channels as everyone else - they have to respect our fundamental laws and principles.
Rather than continuing to insult me maybe you could find somewhere in traditional classical liberal ideals in support of strict Nationalism.
I didn't say that there was - I said you could have a nation of laws, respect for those laws is nationalism and the laws can be ones that empower the individual - not government.
I don't see any support for the NZ murderer in that paragraph - I see equal denouncement of both sides which is the correct position.
The correct position is sole blame on the shooter because he is the one who committed the attack, and no blame on the victims because they did nothing wrong. You, Anning, and the people on T_D are looking for some way to blame the innocent Muslims and in turn alleviate blame from the shooter. There are no both sides. This was a one sided attack and the notion that there are two sides to blame is defense of the shooter.
I would have worded it differently, but in that is a far cry from full support for the murder of 49 people.
Why does it have to be full support? Any support is too much support for a terrorist.
I'm not. I am placing blame on individuals that do not support western liberal values, immigrating to these countries and then trying to change that system, both politically and violently.
I have zero problems with anyone coming to the united states (my resident country) legally and through the same channels as everyone else - they have to respect our fundamental laws and principles.
Just like how those 49 people in NZ immigrated legally and are completely innocent of any wrongdoing? I don't see why your position is relevant because there is no evidence that any of the 49 people do not support western ideals or that they tried to change them politically or violently, so by your own standards they deserve none of the blame.
I didn't say that there was - I said you could have a nation of laws, respect for those laws is nationalism and the laws can be ones that empower the individual - not government.
Respect for laws is not nationalism. Nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. An ideal that again has absolutely no relation to classical liberalism
The correct position is sole blame on the shooter because he is the one who committed the attack, and no blame on the victims because they did nothing wrong. You, Anning, and the people on T_D are looking for some way to blame the innocent Muslims and in turn alleviate blame from the shooter. There are no both sides. This was a one sided attack and the notion that there are two sides to blame is defense of the shooter.
Instigated by global migration treaties and forced multiculturalism - stoked further by social and legacy media.
and that said, I hope this kid never sees the light of day again, dead or alive.
Why does it have to be full support? Any support is too much support for a terrorist.
Except there was zero support for the terrorist, rather a the conditions that have led to this - and many other attacks.
Too soon would be more appropriate.
Just like how those 49 people in NZ immigrated legally and are completely innocent of any wrongdoing? I don't see why your position is relevant because there is no evidence that any of the 49 people do not support western ideals or that they tried to change them politically or violently, so by your own standards they deserve none of the blame.
Did they? Are you trying to strawman me again into unrelated, victim blaming? I won't take the bait.
Respect for laws is not nationalism. Nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.
Of course it is. Respect for the preservation of national culture and laws is absolutely an ingredient of nationalism.
An ideal that again has absolutely no relation to classical liberalism
So you do not think the desire to uphold the rights codified within the US constitution is a nationalist intention? Especially considering it is the will of the globalists to usurp this document for UN law.
You have fallen for the "everyone who is a nationalist is a Nazi" trick.
Instigated by global migration treaties and forced multiculturalism - stoked further by social and legacy media.
and that said, I hope this kid never sees the light of day again, dead or alive.
No. Instigated by him being fucking insane. You said yourself quote, "I have zero problems with anyone coming to the united states (my resident country) legally and through the same channels as everyone else." Seeing as these people entered the country legally and are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. The problem isn't their presence and they deserve no blame for being present. The blame is entirely the shooters for generalizing all Muslims as violent and harmful to society and thinking it's ok to kill them because of that bigoted generalization.
Except there was zero support for the terrorist, rather a the conditions that have led to this - and many other attacks.
Too soon would be more appropriate.
"The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand; And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless."
How is blaming the victims and alleviating any blame from the shooter not a form of defense? They are using the idea that some Muslims are violent as justification for the attack.
Did they? Are you trying to strawman me again into unrelated, victim blaming? I won't take the bait.
For fucks sake stop saying strawman. You're embarrassing yourself. You said quote, "I see equal denouncement of both sides which is the correct position." There's your victim blaming. No strawman. Both sides don't deserve equal blame. Any blame for the innocent victims is too much blame because again, they are innocent. Stop acting like I'm putting words in your mouth when I am directly quoting you.
Of course it is. Respect for the preservation of national culture and laws is absolutely an ingredient of nationalism.
That's not what you said. You said, "you could have a nation of laws, respect for those laws is nationalism." Which it's not. The statement, "Respect for the preservation of national culture and laws is absolutely an ingredient of nationalism," is absolutely true, but has nothing to do with Classical Liberalism. If anything classical liberalism would be allowing residents to practice and be a part of any culture they choose, seeing as classical liberalism is founded on the ideals of freedom and you really shouldn't care what culture your neighbors come from just as they have no business worrying about your culture. Live and let live, no? As long as nobody breaks any laws people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to and practicing Islam is not a crime in the U.S.
So you do not think the desire to uphold the rights codified within the US constitution is a nationalist intention? Especially considering it is the will of the globalists to usurp this document for UN law.
What rights would those be? The constitution is quite a long document and I need you to provide any portion of the constitution that argues against integration of different cultures. You can't just say the rights in the constitution. I need specifics my man.
You have fallen for the "everyone who is a nationalist is a Nazi" trick.
Who did I call a Nazi? I said nationalism is a problematic ideal because of the part of the definition that says, "especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations."
Although I will say any white nationalist is a Nazi, because they're essentially the same thing.
No. Instigated by him being fucking insane. You said yourself quote, "I have zero problems with anyone coming to the united states (my resident country) legally and through the same channels as everyone else." Seeing as these people entered the country legally and are completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
I live in the United States - as far as I am aware we are not in any global migration pacts with the EU or the UN.
The problem isn't their presence and they deserve no blame for being present. The blame is entirely the shooters for generalizing all Muslims as violent and harmful to society and thinking it's ok to kill them because of that bigoted generalization.
Well that - and that the left leaning legacy and social media is laughing about white people dying out in 100 years.
For fucks sake stop saying strawman. You're embarrassing yourself. You said quote, "I see equal denouncement of both sides which is the correct position." There's your victim blaming. No strawman. Both sides don't deserve equal blame. Any blame for the innocent victims is too much blame because again, they are innocent. Stop acting like I'm putting words in your mouth when I am directly quoting you.
I am not taking the bait. I have no fact regarding any of the victims and neither do you.
. That's not what you said. You said, "you could have a nation of laws, respect for those laws is nationalism." Which it's not. The statement, "Respect for the preservation of national culture and laws is absolutely an ingredient of nationalism," is absolutely true, but has nothing to do with Classical Liberalism. If anything classical liberalism would be allowing residents to practice and be a part of any culture they choose, seeing as classical liberalism is founded on the ideals of freedom and you really shouldn't care what culture your neighbors come from just as they have no business worrying about your culture. Live and let live, no? As long as nobody breaks any laws people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to and practicing Islam is not a crime in the U.S.
Classical liberalism is a cultural in that it is a mix of laws, customs and philosophy - born out of the renaissance movement. While it is not exclusive to the United States - it is a part of its cultural foundation.
What rights would those be? The constitution is quite a long document and I need you to provide any portion of the constitution that argues against integration of different cultures. You can't just say the rights in the constitution. I need specifics my man.
The most important ones as outlined in the Bill of Rights - specifically the right freedom of speech, association, religion, defense and due process.
I live in the United States - as far as I am aware we are not in any global migration pacts with the EU or the UN.
Not sure how global migration pacts are relevant. I'm saying if you have no problem with people legally entering the U.S., you should have no problem with anybody legally entering any country. Yet you continue to assert that the Muslim victims should not have been in New Zealand in the first place.
Well that - and that the left leaning legacy and social media is laughing about white people dying out in 100 years.
We're laughing because in what fucking universe are white people going to die out in a hundred years? You're just scared of being a minority. Millions of other people get along just fine in their respective countries. You'll live. Not to mention why the fuck is any race entitled to land? You're white,no? They only land you are entitled to is the land you own. Chill with the white nationalism my guy.
I am not taking the bait. I have no fact regarding any of the victims and neither do you.
You're right. You have no facts. So stop blaming them when they're completely innocent. Especially considering you won't even admit you blamed them in the first place. If you're gonna say some fucked up shit like that, don't pussy out when someone calls you on it. Double down or recant, don't play dumb.
Classical liberalism is a cultural in that it is a mix of laws, customs and philosophy - born out of the renaissance movement. While it is not exclusive to the United States - it is a part of its cultural foundation.
Classical liberalism, Libertarianism and anything related have nothing to do with nationalism and most who follow these ideals are adamantly against nationalism.
The most important ones as outlined in the Bill of Rights - specifically the right freedom of speech, association, religion, defense and due process.
No. The protection of free speech, association, religion, defense, and due process are not nationalistic ideals.
Not sure how global migration pacts are relevant. I'm saying if you have no problem with people legally entering the U.S., you should have no problem with anybody legally entering any country. Yet you continue to assert that the Muslim victims should not have been in New Zealand in the first place.
Because they circumvent the legal process for processing immigrants.
We're laughing because in what fucking universe are white people going to die out in a hundred years? You're just scared of being a minority. Millions of other people get along just fine in their respective countries. You'll live. Not to mention why the fuck is any race entitled to land? You're white,no? They only land you are entitled to is the land you own. Chill with the white nationalism my guy.
Don't project your identitarianism onto me. Not once have I revealed to you what my race or ethnicity is.
You're right. You have no facts. So stop blaming them when they're completely innocent. Especially considering you won't even admit you blamed them in the first place. If you're gonna say some fucked up shit like that, don't pussy out when someone calls you on it. Double down or recant, don't play dumb.
I never claimed to have any facts regarding the victims of the NZ massacre - neither did the NZ politician that wrote the letter as your once example of "evidence"
You are the one in this conversation - from the beginning - that has been full of assertions and fake arguments driven by what it seems as an emotional need to further some identitarian agenda.
Classical liberalism, Libertarianism and anything related have nothing to do with nationalism and most who follow these ideals are adamantly against nationalism.
Of course it does - and this is why I called you a doofus.
No. The protection of free speech, association, religion, defense, and due process are not nationalistic ideals.
Feck you're dense. No they are not exclusive to nationalism, but they might be ingredients of a nation that adopts those values and protects them.
Because they circumvent the legal process for processing immigrants.
Can I get a source that the victims in NZ circumvented the legal process for immigration? Or is this another thing you just made up?
Don't project your identitarianism onto me. Not once have I revealed to you what my race or ethnicity is.
Generally non white people don't parrot white nationalist rhetoric so I don't think it was the craziest assumption.
I never claimed to have any facts regarding the victims of the NZ massacre - neither did the NZ politician that wrote the letter as your once example of "evidence"
No emotion involved. If you don't have facts regarding the victims, how can you or Anning claim they are guilty of anything?
You are the one in this conversation - from the beginning - that has been full of assertions and fake arguments driven by what it seems as an emotional need to further some identitarian agenda.
I'm not the one who keeps making up statistics or "facts" to support my argument. But my arguments are fake? Nah I don't think so.
Of course it does - and this is why I called you a doofus.
Please draw me the line from Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism to nationalism. You keep saying they are connected but have presented no evidence to prove it. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
Feck you're dense.
Back with the insults because you have yet to prove anything you've claimed thus far.
No they are not exclusive to nationalism, but they might be ingredients of a nation that adopts those values and protects them.
Might be? Are they or are they not? You might be a child molester. I might be a billionaire. You literally just said those ideas aren't exclusive to nationalism, then tried to use them to back up your claim that the foundation of the United States is inherently nationalistic, but I'm the dense one. A white person might be racist, but that doesn't mean all white people are racist. A black person might be a criminal, but that doesn't mean all black people are criminals. You can't go two comments without contradicting yourself.
Generally non white people don't parrot white nationalist rhetoric so I don't think it was the craziest assumption.
Classical liberalism and the US constitution is white nationalist rhetoric.
Gotcha mate.
No emotion involved. If you don't have facts regarding the victims, how can you or Anning claim they are guilty of anything?
We didn't.
I'm not the one who keeps making up statistics or "facts" to support my argument. But my arguments are fake? Nah I don't think so.
Just in this response you conflated western culture with white nationalism.
Please draw me the line from Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism to nationalism. You keep saying they are connected but have presented no evidence to prove it. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
I have - multiple times.
Perhaps you should listen to others as opposed to just yourself.
Might be? Are they or are they not? You might be a child molester. I might be a billionaire. You literally just said those ideas aren't exclusive to nationalism,
A white person might be racist, but that doesn't mean all white people are racist. A black person might be a criminal, but that doesn't mean all black people are criminals. You can't go two comments without contradicting yourself.
Being a child molestor might be an ingrediant of nationalism, if a nation's interest is to rape children.
Being a billionaire might be an ingredient of nationalism if that nation's interest is capitalism.
then tried to use them to back up your claim that the foundation of the United States is inherently nationalistic, but I'm the dense one.
Of course it was - then it proceeded to fight many wars, both economic and kinetic in order to maintain that fact.
A white person might be racist, but that doesn't mean all white people are racist. A black person might be a criminal, but that doesn't mean all black people are criminals. You can't go two comments without contradicting yourself.
I have no clue what you are blabbering about here - nationalism, like capitalism is an amoral system that is only a template for whatever principles and philosophies are in its composition.
Globalism also falls into that category - but at this moment in human history what is best is many different competing systems that try to persuade each other through example. My feeling is, and this is completely subjective - is that if we rush in globalism now - it would be run by idiotic ideologies and we would jump right into global totalitarianism.
Classical liberalism and the US constitution is white nationalist rhetoric.
Gotcha mate.
No. Saying that white people are going extinct and we need to take measures to protect the white race is white nationalist rhetoric. Where you got the idea that I think classical liberalism and the constitution are white nationalist rhetoric is beyond me. Especially considering I've said multiple times that classical liberalism and nationalism of any form have no connection and even asked you to provide me with a connection between the two.
We didn't.
"And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless."
Direct quote from Anning, from the statement you said you agreed with, so yes, you did.
Just in this response you conflated western culture with white nationalism.
No. I didn't. I said the idea of white genocide and the necessity of protecting the white race was white nationalism. Because it is.
I have - multiple times.
Perhaps you should listen to others as opposed to just yourself.
No you haven't. I keep asking you how they are related and you give me completely unsourced nonsense about how classical liberalism is the same as nationalism and I don't get it because I'm a "doofus." Like I said the burden of proof is on you because you made the claim. Let me see some Adam Smith, John Locke, and Jean-Baptiste Say quotes about how nationalism and classical liberalism are related.
Being a child molestor might be an ingrediant of nationalism, if a nation's interest is to rape children.
Being a billionaire might be an ingredient of nationalism if that nation's interest is capitalism.
This means nothing. I asked you for concrete proof from the constitution, which need I remind you, you claimed existed, that supports nationalism. All you've given me is a hypothetical about how a nationalistic country might have rights to free speech.
Of course it was - then it proceeded to fight many wars, both economic and kinetic in order to maintain that fact.
So which wars would those be? Would it be when we joined WW1 to help Europe or joined WW2's western front to help Europe? Or maybe the Korean war we joined solely to protect South Korea, or what about the Vietnam war we fought to help protect South Vietnam? Yeah all of this free money we've given away has definitely been done solely with our own interests in mind. So nationalistic.
I have no clue what you are blabbering about here
You said, "No they are not exclusive to nationalism, but they might be ingredients of a nation that adopts those values and protects them." I asked you to tell me how the bill of rights directly supports nationalistic ideals, and you told me a nationalistic country might have free speech. I didn't ask you for maybes. I asked for concrete proof and you have yet to provide any. A lot of things might be true, but that doesn't make them true. You can't support your argument with a hypothetical maybe of something that could exist. Those aren't facts and it's not evidence.
nationalism, like capitalism is an amoral system that is only a template for whatever principles and philosophies are in its composition
You agree with the point I made I made in this comment 20 hours ago where I said, "Nationalism and Globalism are not black and white. There is a large grey area in between. Obviously we have to make some sacrifices for the good of our country, but pure nationalism is a complete disregard for anybody outside of your nation. Which is a problem." Glad we found some common ground.
Globalism also falls into that category - but at this moment in human history what is best is many different competing systems that try to persuade each other through example. My feeling is, and this is completely subjective - is that if we rush in globalism now - it would be run by idiotic ideologies and we would jump right into global totalitarianism.
I agree. Nationalism and Globalism are both bad in their purest forms. We need a balance. We can't be completely selfless and help everybody else to our own detriment, and we can't be completely selfish and have no regard for anybody else to the detriment to other countries. Just like capitalism and socialism. Pure capitalism gives us monopolies and 8 year olds losing fingers in factories they work in 12 hours a day for 3 cents a week. All about balance. Again, glad we could find some common ground.
No. Saying that white people are going extinct and we need to take measures to protect the white race is white nationalist rhetoric. Where you got the idea that I think classical liberalism and the constitution are white nationalist rhetoric is beyond me. Especially considering I've said multiple times that classical liberalism and nationalism of any form have no connection and even asked you to provide me with a connection between the two.
"And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless."
Too soon.
, No. I didn't. I said the idea of white genocide and the necessity of protecting the white race was white nationalism. Because it is.
It is - but its a non-issue because the people that actually think that way and have influence are microscopic.
No you haven't. I keep asking you how they are related and you give me completely unsourced nonsense about how classical liberalism is the same as nationalism and I don't get it because I'm a "doofus." Like I said the burden of proof is on you because you made the claim. Let me see some Adam Smith, John Locke, and Jean-Baptiste Say quotes about how nationalism and classical liberalism are related.
I never said that - my position is that white supremacy, collectivism, individualism or even classical liberalism can all have nationalism as an ingredient.
You agree with the point I made I made in this comment 20 hours ago where I said, "Nationalism and Globalism are not black and white. There is a large grey area in between. Obviously we have to make some sacrifices for the good of our country, but pure nationalism is a complete disregard for anybody outside of your nation. Which is a problem." Glad we found some common ground.
I do not agree based on that spectrum because that assumes that nationalism equates to isolationism - which is horseshit. I do agree there are no absolutes - but its difficult to define a metric between say, collectivism and individualism when they contrast each other significantly.
I agree. Nationalism and Globalism are both bad in their purest forms. We need a balance. We can't be completely selfless and help everybody else to our own detriment, and we can't be completely selfish and have no regard for anybody else to the detriment to other countries. Just like capitalism and socialism. Pure capitalism gives us monopolies and 8 year olds losing fingers in factories they work in 12 hours a day for 3 cents a week. All about balance. Pure socialism gives us Soviet Russia. Again, glad we could find some common ground.
The problem here is when you usurp globalist law with nationalist law - you end up with violent division. Case in point - the current state of the EU.
Like it or not - people are inherently tribal. There is no tribe called 'earth' at the moment - and there won't be for a very long time.
They're racist. It happens. You get used to it and it's a minority opinion. It's not the end of the world and people of color have been dealing with it for as long as America has existed.
Too soon.
Nice dodge but you didn't disprove my point.
It is - but its a non-issue because the people that actually think that way and have influence are microscopic.
Not really. There are multiple people who have become famous for pushing this ideology, Richard Spencer of course being the most famous one. It's also a rhetoric that's been echoed all over the internet on places like /pol/ and T_D (even though that has been proven false, there have been no reported links between the race of the farmers and attack rate, and the attacks are more than likely financially motivated).
I never said that - my position is that white supremacy, collectivism, individualism or even classical liberalism can all have nationalism as an ingredient.
I agree, but that's not what you said you said, "When I talk to you about preserving culture, I am not referring to white nationalism, that's YOUR strawman - I am referring to western classical liberalism." And I asked you to tell me when Adam, Smith, John Locke, or any other Classical Liberal figure said anything about the preservation of culture. And you didn't. At no point did I say nationalism couldn't coexist with classical liberal ideals, I said it wasn't a component of classical liberalism.
I do not agree based on that spectrum because that assumes that nationalism equates to isolationism - which is horseshit
No. It doesn't. For the third time, the definition of nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Nothing is mentioned or implied about isolationism so I have no idea where you keep getting that from. I said pure nationalism disregards the well being of other nations. Which is the bolded part of the dictionary definition of nationalism.
The problem here is when you usurp globalist law with nationalist law - you end up with violent division. Case in point - the current state of the EU.
The EU is fine right now. There isn't some sort of ongoing race war. Some people are ok with immigration, some aren't. Luckily for them, they live in democracies and some candidates run on an anti immigration platform, while others are either pro immigration or indifferent. If the anti immigration candidate wins, then the majority of the people are against immigration, if the pro immigration candidate wins, the majority of people don't care about foreign immigration. Cultural integration isn't inherently right or wrong, it's up to people to decide how they feel about it, and they do so by voting. Just like how the majority of Americans voted for Trump and he in turn put measures in place (Muslim ban) to stop immigration like the people who voted for him wanted.
I agree with you, i'll add that this doesn't support your original statement that T_D supports the NZ mass murderer.
Not really. There are multiple people who have become famous for pushing this ideology, Richard Spencer of course being the most famous one. It's also a rhetoric that's been echoed all over the internet on places like /pol/ and T_D (even though that has been proven false, there have been no reported links between the race of the farmers and attack rate, and the attacks are more than likely financially motivated).
Richard Spencer is a political hack that has lept from GWB Jr to Obama to Trump to now Yang.
That said - whatever he believes in he is not the mainstream.
I agree, but that's not what you said you said, "When I talk to you about preserving culture, I am not referring to white nationalism, that's YOUR strawman - I am referring to western classical liberalism." And I asked you to tell me when Adam, Smith, John Locke, or any other Classical Liberal figure said anything about the preservation of culture.
Yes, preserving western liberal values
And you didn't. At no point did I say nationalism couldn't coexist with classical liberal ideals, I said it wasn't a component of classical liberalism.
Well there you go - I never said it was a requirement either. We come to an agreement.
No. It doesn't. For the third time, the definition of nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Nothing is mentioned or implied about isolationism so I have no idea where you keep getting that from. I said pure nationalism disregards the well being of other nations. Which is the bolded part of the dictionary definition of nationalism.
But if trade of goods, services, ingenuity, technology benefits two nations - why can't they both be nationalist?
I think we can use a little nationalism when it comes to China, assuming you live in the US or Canada.
especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations
Why is that relevant? Why would any one country be beholden to the welfare of another country?
I am not discounting welfare or charity - but why is this unbalanced bargain assumed?
The EU is fine right now. There isn't some sort of ongoing race war. Some people are ok with immigration, some aren't. Luckily for them, they live in democracies and some candidates run on an anti immigration platform, while others are either pro immigration or indifferent. If the anti immigration candidate wins, then the majority of the people are against immigration, if the pro immigration candidate wins, the majority of people don't care about foreign immigration. Cultural integration isn't inherently right or wrong, it's up to people to decide how they feel about it, and they do so by voting. Just like how the majority of Americans voted for Trump and he in turn put measures in place (Muslim ban) to stop immigration like the people who voted for him wanted.
Then why are eurosceptic movements building at rapid pace, in your opinon? More conspiracy theories? More imaginary white power movements?
Its because germany tried and is failing to conquer europe for a third time in nearly 100 years.
A subreddit that collectively denies climate change, clings on to Seth Rich conspiracies, and revels in islamophobia right after a terrible tragedy (e.g. the glorification of the horrible Fraser Anning letter) - yep, I can get behind banning that subreddit and all the pieces of shit in it.
Kind of like how every single leftist sub clings to saying people with penises are biologically women, clinging on to ShareBlue conspiracies, and revels in Whitephobia, Androphobia, Hoplophobia, and christophobia right after a tragedy. Yep I can get behind banning all leftist subreddits.
Glorious whataboutism. Not to mention, extremely dishonest. There is a difference in degree. The Donald is full of extremist pieces of shit, while most comparable leftist subreddits only have conspiracy idiots on the fringe.
Christophobia, hoplophobia, lol. Get fucked, snowflake.
I wonder if you realize how lost and deluded you are. And whether you will ever realize how misguided your worldview is, and how you have been conned by a transparent charlatan. Deluded moronic Trumpsters are fascinating.
“well good evening philadelphia, tonight we have a chilling story developing as we speak on the internet, we warn you: the following may be graphic to some of our viewers. thanks to a scoop phoned in from infamous child porn website reddit user giganticfaggot96 we’ve learned that there are people on the internet who are fired up about fundamentalist islamic terrorism! even more disturbing, these same people are actually supporters of the president, donald trump.”
PewPewUDeaded M H 46 points 10 hours ago
They absolutely should. I hope this post is pinned and I hope admins see it. The sub bleeds out and infects the rest of reddit.
Do a test: if someone says something stupid/bigoted, check their profile. I do it and 90% of the time they turn up positive for posting in r/The_Donald r/unpopularopinion r/sargonofakkad r/MensRights and/or other subs of the like.
Weird, cuz when I do that I see all of the above subs, and also various leftoid subs like AHS. Almost like you're both absurdly stupid people with no idea what you're talking about.
113 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2019-03-16
This is why we need mayocide.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 DeweaponizedAutism 2019-03-16
Snappy for president
1 boyoyoyoyong 2019-03-16
Is he being paid by the splc or adl
1 sloth_on_meth 2019-03-16
I'm just putting together lists from other posts.
1 BeiberFan123 2019-03-16
What a life.
1 triptodisneyland2017 2019-03-16
I’m sure you have such a good job and family if you have the time to do that 👍👍
1 sloth_on_meth 2019-03-16
I literally spent about 3 minutes tops on that, but okay.
Anyway, have a nice day!
1 ManBearFridge 2019-03-16
That isn't possible. You linked dozens of different threads. You can't just count the time copy pasting and ignore the hours you spent drudging this shit.
1 LaylaCumiaFan420 2019-03-16
Why do you people always do that, the fake saccharine niceness thing.
Whenever you’re losing an argument (which is all the time) it’s always “I hope you feel better soon” or something. Is that supposed to be a special tactic or something?
Also you do realize that’s the reason you guys are called NPC’s- you all literally say the same things, on cue, every time.
I would suggest you put down the “how to argue like a communist” playbook and think for yourself. you might start actually changing minds.
1 sloth_on_meth 2019-03-16
Ah, okay, so I need to be a dick
Listen you fuckheads. I've collected a list of people literally supporting or justifying this fucking mass murder of innocent people, and all you nazis care about is how long the list took me?
1 UBIisLazy 2019-03-16
You literally support a subreddit that had outright genocide denial on the front page yesterday. How the fuck are you the moral authority?
1 sloth_on_meth 2019-03-16
What subreddit are you talking about?
1 UBIisLazy 2019-03-16
Chapo
1 sloth_on_meth 2019-03-16
i don't support that subreddit, what makes you think that?
1 ProblematicReality 2019-03-16
Guy, you literally post on /r/AgainstHateSubreddit, one of the most hypocritical & vile cesspools on reddit.
​
You think people don't notice? We all know people like you can have bias and be ideological driven, but it's very clear that you're not even trying to pretend to be neutral.
​
Your path to the inevitable evergorwing censorship of wrongthink is obvious. I've been on reddit far too long and have seen too many cases of mods like you when they manage to take over a popular and influential subreddit.
​
Oh well, good news is that you might have it your way! You might be fully able, with the help of your pals at /r/ChapoTrapHouse and /r/AgainstHateSubreddits to remove all the naughty and "problematic" users on /r/PewdiepieSubmissions.
​
Felix himself will probably won't even object, if only he was 1/3 of an "alt-righter" as the majority of leftists think, the same leftist that are currently sending him countless death treats on twitter and have made pewdieple follow ALL the people he was following on twitter, (like the very problematic Lauren Southern) because the deranged people were also harassing those people and creating a mob.
​
​
Good luck on moderating Pewdipie subreddit while your ideological peers write [libelous articles like this](https://www.dailydot.com/irl/pewdiepie-new-zealand-alt-right-nazi/) and [harassing tweets like this](https://twitter.com/gokunaruto3000/status/1107231751615606784).
1 sloth_on_meth 2019-03-16
what even?
are you saying i'm on the side of people who are saying this is even remotely felix's fault?
i posted a list of users fucking celebrating this mass shooting on the_donald. you think they should be allowed to do that?
get a grip
1 ProblematicReality 2019-03-16
No one thinks this is Felix fault, not even the brain-dead people harassing him and his ex-follows.
​
They just HATE him because he followed people with right-wing views on twitter, and view this massacre just as another great opportunity to dogphile on him and defame him even more.
​
These are the types of people who frequents /r/AgainstHateSubreddits and /r/ChapoTrapHouse, but don't take my words for it, go see the twitter of the mods of that place and the vile shit they say about the man the subrredit you run is about.
​
The reason they don't get banned is pretty obvious bias from the admins(some of witch i even used to be "palls" with before). /r/MillionDollarExtreme and /r/CringeAnarchy where both banned and quarantined for FAR less then targeted harassment and death threats.
1 ProblematicReality 2019-03-16
https://twitter.com/KEEMSTAR/status/1107709758398697472
1 TotesMessenger 2019-03-16
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 ManBearFridge 2019-03-16
That's more like it.
1 BeiberFan123 2019-03-16
I can’t tell if you’re serious or memeing.
1 IHeartCommyMommy 2019-03-16
There you go, you're finally starting to not sound like a passive aggressive prissy cunt, so you're making improvements. Granted, considering I've said multiple times I want to have the shooter executed and called td a bunch of retards on multiple occasions you're gonna have a hard time pegging me as being in their side.
Still, I understand why you have to. It can't just be that your hobby is pathetic and retarded, if we mock you it HAS to be because we're nazis.
1 DeathSlyce 2019-03-16
You you hate christian people huh you piece of shit? You honestly think that bringing up the fact that Muslims have killed far more Christians mean you justify murder? Get some mental help
1 youre_mum_mate 2019-03-16
Loads of these threads are just T_D talking about muslim terror attacks anyway, you should've had the good sense to stick to actual hate threads instead. Especially with the very first entry in the list just being a news report about 120 christians being killed by muslim extremists, you just look like a retard who doesn't want these things to be discussed because they make you uncomfortable.
1 Badfoodbad 2019-03-16
Look at this little twat. The incestual orgy at the trailer park finish early? Go fuck yourself, dipshit.
1 JadedPartyOtter 2019-03-16
Definitely sounds like the sort of thing a sloth on meth would do.
1 Lysis10 2019-03-16
It amazes me people spend their time obsessing over things they don't like instead of just enjoying the things they do like and ignoring the other stuff.
1 SheepHerdr 2019-03-16
Isn't it sad that this is what you guys call "Drama"? That this is the only response you have? That all you can do is call the creator a "fag"?
Pathetic. Y'all are pathetic.
1 triptodisneyland2017 2019-03-16
Yall cant behave
1 Tyestor 2019-03-16
Yall posters out.
1 jewdanksdad 2019-03-16
A LoL player in the wild? Dont you have a body pillow to fuck?
1 SheepHerdr 2019-03-16
Oh ouch that really hurt, please come back when you have an actual response to make bud
1 jewdanksdad 2019-03-16
Lol, your go to response is to make something up. Not surprising an incel is offended.
1 SheepHerdr 2019-03-16
Try harder.
1 KEEP_URSELF_SAFE 2019-03-16
FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT !!
1 SheepHerdr 2019-03-16
The real drama tbh
1 Cleverly_Clearly 2019-03-16
Oof, yikes. This is digital blackface. Let’s unpack this. Why are you appropriating AAVE? This ain’t it, chief.
1 pewpew17 2019-03-16
Anifa literally put a Bernie supporter into the hospital. Why y'all trippin we just fighting fascism.
Also using y'all unironic 😂
1 SheepHerdr 2019-03-16
1) Idk what relevance that has to this being a shitty, lowest-of-effort post
2) Y'all was ironic
1 keepittropical 2019-03-16
Shut up fag
1 SheepHerdr 2019-03-16
Piss-poor trolling. 5/10.
1 LaylaCumiaFan420 2019-03-16
Right on cue.
1 SheepHerdr 2019-03-16
How is this pretty much y'alls only response
1 scrote_prote 2019-03-16
Shut up fag
1 SheepHerdr 2019-03-16
No U
1 orangetato 2019-03-16
🤠🤠🤠
1 Tyestor 2019-03-16
All that guy has managed to accomplish is a list of posts about muslim hate / terror attacks. Logically, the admins should ban every muslim subreddit as a result if this excellent lust.
1 jell0saq 2019-03-16
Oh no! A sub I don't agree with! Ban them!
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Difference between disagreeing with ideology and justifying terrorism you jelly brained retard
1 jell0saq 2019-03-16
You are literally scared of a message board.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Alright Osama, keep defending terrorists
1 jell0saq 2019-03-16
Keep defending censorship. 🤐
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Yeah, some real valuable discussion goin on in The_Donald. Everything from defending terrorists to agreeing with their ideology.
1 jell0saq 2019-03-16
"Value" is irrelevant. While I understand that private companies can limit whatever they want - just because you don't like a conversation doesn't mean you get to tell people they cannot have it. You have to go out of your way to go into that sub to be offended. Don't...go...there?
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Some guy just killed 49 people and his manifesto is awfully similar to the stuff that gets posted on that sub daily. If it was all harmless I’d be fine with it. I have little to no problem with r/conservative for example because although I think they say some stupid shit, they don’t defend terrorists and their ideals.
1 jell0saq 2019-03-16
I think that there are a lot of people - especially on reddit that put too much stock into words and messages. That they believe that just being around that messaging is actually what causes violence. I believe it is someone's real world experiences that cause them to do something radical - not internet words or messaging.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Spreading the message certainly doesn’t help. The only difference between T_D users and the NZ shooters is that instead of just talking about how they hate brown people online, they decided to do something about it.
1 jell0saq 2019-03-16
Yeah but what is the real problem? That they post about it or that is actually how they feel?
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Both but specifically the former. It’s unfortunate that people hold these views but you can’t police people’s thoughts. The problem is that people share these views, especially considering the amount of misinformation spread on that sub. They spread hate and encourage it. When you spend all day talking about how Muslims are invading your country, it’s only natural that the next step is someone decides to take action. They are encouraging acts of terror but they won’t admit it.
1 jell0saq 2019-03-16
It is kind of like the endless back and forth on reddit about scientific data and anecdotal experience. Sure peer reviewed scientific data is important and objective. However, experiences are important too, you see, taste, smell, and feel them. If there are people out there that have had negative experiences for example with Islam or Muslims, they should be able to express it. To just deplatform such a thing is to totally discredit someone's life experiences - in my opinion is more dangerous in the long run. I believe most people that engage in radical mass murder type behavior - do it because they are desperate and want to be heard.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
At the same time they also validate each other’s ideals. Having a bad experience with Muslims doesn’t mean it’s ok to generalize billions of people. However instead of being told this isn’t ok, the go to their safe space and pat each other on the back and tell each other that they’re right. They get comfortable because they have millions of other people telling them it’s ok to be racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc.
1 jell0saq 2019-03-16
Yes, echo chambers are generally not good - doesn't mean we should ban them. Also - banning everyone with different ideas than yourself slowly creates your own echo chamber...
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
Can you please post one positively supported post on T_D that supports the mass murder of 49 muslims?
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Front page, almost 3k upvotes, gold, and silver
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
The second sentence ..
".. I condemn violence, I condemn the gunman"
Try again.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Bro. You actually believe that? Maybe read the entire thing that completely contradicts that. That’s like me saying “I’m not racist but I fucking hate black people.” Does me saying I’m not racist excuse the other part?
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
No faith required, it is literally the second sentence....
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Dude literally said that Muslim people had it coming because they shouldn’t be in western/Eurocentric countries and that there should be no blame placed on the shooters ideology (nationalism). If you don’t see the problem with that this argument isn’t worth either of our time. I’m done. I’ve got to wait like 5 minutes between every comment on this shithole sub lol.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
He condemned the attack in the second fucking sentence of the statement
yes, if you call non-believers apostates and run them over with a truck, crazy people will retaliate
Of course, nationalism - a philosophy that has existed since time and memorial is not to blame. The media stoking violence is to blame.
Suck it up buttercup. I have to deal with that same limitation on countless reddit subs - while responding to multiple people.
Maybe you should support your positions with something other then innuendo and bias, and not have to post so much? Food for thought.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
I already debunked this. Stop rephrasing it and come up with a new argument.
I never said that, nor did Aggin say this. Why are you presenting a strawman?
Yes. Multiculturalism has consequences. Extremists combined with the socialism and legacy media stocking racial violence is to blame. Nationalism is defined by prioritizing the needs of your own country is not to blame. Do you think the Islamic State wants globalism? Sure - under their regime. Use your fucking head.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
No. No you didn’t you keep saying “He CoNdEmNs HiM iN tHe SeCoNd LiNe,” and haven’t said a word about the two paragraphs succeeding it where he places all of the blame on innocent Muslims because they don’t belong in that country. Kinda sounds familiar, that is if you read the manifesto.
“yes, if you call non-believers apostates and run them over with a truck, crazy people will retaliate”
That’s a direct quote from you, saying that killing 50 innocent people is a natural reaction to extremists that make up less that 1% of the religion. No strawman here. Find a new slant.
I don’t even know where to start with this. This is complete nonsense.
For one, there are no consequences to multiculturalism for normal people. Me and all the other normal people have no problem living side by side with people from different cultures. Only racist snowflakes who feel for some reason their race is entitled to a piece of land have a problem with Multiculturalism.
For two what in God’s name does socialism have to do with this? No parties involved in this event were socialist and socialism has nothing to do with anything we’ve previously discussed.
For three what the fuck is does legacy media stocking racial violence supposed to mean? Are you saying the media inspired the shooter commit his attacks or...? Not really following.
For four Nationalism is a problem because it means that any foreigners entering the country don’t belong. The natural next step from which is forcefully removing them, which is exactly what the NZ terrorist did.
For five here you go again bringing up shit that’s completely irrelevant. Who said anything about the Islamic state wants? Why does it matter what the Islamic state wants? How does what the Islamic state wants relevant to anything we’ve previously talked about? Stop moving the goalposts and let’s try to stay on topic.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
I did. I said that the islam has caused violence and it would be natural to expect a reaction.
I never said that everyone bound to the islamic faith strives to run people over with a truck
Reality proves you wrong. The NZ incident proves you wrong. The islamic attacks in Europe prove you wrong.
Nice ad hominem, i'll just call checkmate on this one.
No. People trying to protect their culture. Which is 90% of the planet.
That was an autocorrect on my phone which I edited. I meant to say social media and legacy media
When CNN and BBC blame people that have a specific skin color for the economic or situational problems of some other race, or in other words succumb to identitarianism they stoke the radicalism. I blame them 100% for the racial divisions within our society today.
Immigration is enforced all over the world. That's a component of nationalism.
I did. You're utopian world view is impossible and will cause societal features in its implementation. Let cultures develop on their own and stop stoking racial tensions online. Be a better person.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Islam has caused nothing. A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists.
“I did. I said that the islam has caused violence and it would be natural to expect a reaction.” You sure do place a lot of blame on people who have nothing to do with those attacks.
No. It proves me right. A small group of bigots commit those attacks while the majority have no problems with multiculturalism. The fault isn’t with multiculturalism because most people get along just fine without committing acts of terror. The problem is with those people.
You got a source for that? Or are we just throwing out random numbers we made up to try and support our arguments?
So rather than blame society for creating racial divides (Slavery, Jim Crow, and the overall sentiments of racism they have left behind), you blame the media for acknowledging they exist. Because racism is alive and well. I’ve had multiple people maliciously call me a nigger to my face in the past year. I’ve heard people talk about how spics and sand niggers are ruining the country. Just because you want to ignore these things doesn’t mean they don’t exist. They, the racists are the reason racial division exists because they are the only ones who have a problem with racial unity.
Nationalism and Globalism are not black and white. There is a large grey area in between. Obviously we have to make some sacrifices for the good of our country, but pure nationalism is a complete disregard for anybody outside of your nation. Which is a problem.
Cultures are developing on their own. Just like how the Muslims in NZ who let me remind you, are there legally, were naturally changing and developing the culture over there.
Wanting people to not prejudge millions of others based on the actions of a few isn’t an unreasonable request or a utopian world view. It’s common sense. I don’t see why we should stop striving for tolerance because a few bigots have a problem with it. They can fuck off.
And how is me saying that people of different cultures and races should be able to live together in harmony stoking racial tensions? If anything it’s the exact opposite.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
Checkmate
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Considering there are 1.5 billion people practicing Islam and you gave me less than 100 attacks, no that isn’t checkmate, you just proved my point. I counted 64 attacks. 64/1.5 billion is 4.26666667 * 10-8, or 0.000004267%. Also known as as small percent.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
Don't hurt yourself ......
No find my someone on T_D that supported the terrorist attack in NZ and was upvoted - your original claim.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
That’s 0.003711% of Europe’s Muslim population in 2017 and 0.003779% in 2016. Again. Small percentage. Are you gonna actually come through with a valid argument or keep providing statistics that prove my point then try to change the subject?
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
Your mental gymnastics and excuses are not are a non-argument, not even amusing.
Here you go:
Minorities in Europe = 105 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Europe#Ethnic_groups Europe population = 741 million, minus 105 million minorities, lets say a third of the remaining white people are right leaning = 200 million.
Right wing = 20 / 200 mil arrested for terrorism = 0.01/100,000 Right wing = 5 / 200 mil commit/plan to commit terrorist attacks = 0.0025 / 100,000
Muslim population in Europe = 44 million https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Europe
705 out of 44 mil arrested for terrorism = 1.6/100,000 = 160x higher than right wingers 265 out of 44 mil commit/plan to commit terrorist attacks = 0.6/100,000 = 240x higher than right wingers
Now support your original statement that T_D supports the mass murderer in NZ, or GTFO
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
At no point did I say Muslims didn’t commit acts of terror at a higher rate than anybody else. I said not all Muslims are terrorists and that it’s a very small percentage committing these acts and the majority of them are completely innocent. Which I proved three times over using statistics you provided. Stop changing the subject and putting words in my mouth.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
Great - I never made that point. All I said was that forced multiculturalism has been a disaster.
That's hilarious projection - considering:
A. I never made the accusation that all Muslims are radical terrorists, although you seem to be adamant that T_D fully supports the NZ massacre, despite not having any evidence to support that allegation
B. You are the one changing the topic
Since you're so adept at mental gymnastics, and you're so willing to to cover for muh peaceful Muslims, wrap your head around this one ....
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
Scroll down, read specifically the parts about morality and western culture, rights for women, rights for gays etc .........
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
I said and I quote "Islam has caused nothing. A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists."
You then said checkmate implying that was incorrect and linked This image proving my point so yes, you did make that point.
Already linked you a post but you can't seem to realize the problem with it so whatever
Considering less than 0.01 percent of Muslims are responsible for terror attacks I'd say the majority are peaceful
Everybody surveyed lives in either Asia or Africa. Why do their views on and in relation to western society matter? They don't live here. The section at the bottom about Muslims in America says "When that survey is compared with the global survey of Muslims, some key differences emerge between U.S. Muslims and Muslims in other countries. In general, American Muslims are more at ease in the contemporary world." That seems more relevant than the opinions of people living thousands of miles away.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
I understand that you tried to deflect from supporting your original statement
Yes, responding to a statement that you made that was a deflection from your original position. I never implied that all muslims were extremists - that was a strawman concocted by you to move the argument away from 'T_D supported the NZ massacre"
Where the second sentence basically disavows the shooter, proving you wrong .....
You then go ahead to jump through mental hula hoops to and mind reading to try and justify your confirmation bias, that T_D supports terrorism.
Sure they are. But a large percentage thinks that western culture, rights for women rights for gays is abhorrent and immoral. They aren't exactly holding vigils and wearing the west's equivalent of "hijabs" when a truck runs over innocents in Nice - now are they?
But they do live here. Millions are coming into Europe every year and they hate you, they hate your liberal views, they hate women, they hate gays and they hate jews, they consider you an apostate.
Now tell me - how the fuck is multiculturalism going to solve that?
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
What have I deflected? I showed you post from T_D supporting the shooter, you said it didn't support the shooter. That's like me saying the sky is blue, showing you a blue sky, then you tell me the sky is red. If you can't see that the sky is blue I can't help you.
"I said that the islam has caused violence and it would be natural to expect a reaction." - Direct quote from you claiming that the religion of Islam causes violence. Stop saying strawman when you clearly have no idea what it means.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/b1ywna/ahs_fag_has_the_time_to_do_this/ej1vq4n/?context=3
https://old.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/b1ywna/ahs_fag_has_the_time_to_do_this/ej1u1hz/?context=3
https://old.reddit.com/r/Drama/comments/b1ywna/ahs_fag_has_the_time_to_do_this/ej1s8t6/?context=3
You sure are trying hard to prove they aren't seeing as how these are your responses to me saying most Muslims are peaceful and only a handful of extremists are violent
That's unfortunate but those people don't live in the west so why do their beliefs affect us? Not to mention the amount of Christians who think rights for gays and eastern culture are abhorrent.
Well, no, the people in this survey were from Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Palestinian territories, Russia, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan. Of the people from the U.S. that were surveyed the author of the article said "When that survey is compared with the global survey of Muslims, some key differences emerge between U.S. Muslims and Muslims in other countries. In general, American Muslims are more at ease in the contemporary world." Could it be that the Muslims who hate westerners don't go to the west just like the westerners who hate Muslims don't go to the Middle East?
As far as them hating me, so what? I've had white people call me a nigger, black people call me a cracker, conservatives call me a libtard, and Christians say I'm a sinner who's going to hell. But I don't have a problem with white people as a whole, black people as a whole, conservatives as a whole, or Christians as a whole. When you get a group of millions of people you can't generalize their views. So stop generalizing their views.
Can't really speak on Europe but at least in the U.S., multiculturalism is the norm. The country is made up of immigrants who merged cultures. Now, the U.S. isn't perfect but I'd say multiculturalism worked out alright here. And like I said before, normal people don't have a problem with people from different cultures. Bigots do. And you proceeded to pull out a completely made up statistic about how 90% of people are against multiculturalism.
Classical liberalism refers to economics and is the idea that the economy should be free and unregulated. It has absolutely nothing to do with nationalism or globalism. Stop saying strawman, you don't know what it means. I didn't bring up white nationalism for no reason, I mentioned it because it was explicitly stated in the NZ shooter's manifesto and is a viewpoint that's become increasingly popular, mainly on the right wing. You can call it whatever you want, but the idea of protecting the white race and white countries from foreigners is white nationalism.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
You have deflected repeatedly from supporting the original comment claiming that T_D supported the NZ terrorist
I proved you wrong (easy) and now you’ve moved onto all these non-related strawman arguments like me claiming that all 1.8 billion Islamic followers are terrorists.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
No I haven't. I've referenced it in almost every comment including the one you are responding to.
No you didn't. You have put forth no facts supporting your argument and the few facts you have put forth actually support my arguments. Don't know if you know anything about debates but you need evidence to back up your claim.
For the love of god please stop saying strawman. You have no idea what it means and are using it incorrectly. A strawman is an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument. I've misrepresented nothing and everything I've said is in response to things you've said.
In this comment you said quote, "I did. I said that the islam has caused violence and it would be natural to expect a reaction."
I then responded in this comment saying quote, "Islam has caused nothing. A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists."
You then quoted that in this comment and responded with this image with the caption "checkmate", implying you disproved my previous statement which was and I quote "Islam has caused nothing. A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists."
I then debunked your counterargument in this comment by pointing out that based on information you provided, only 0.000004267% of Muslims are involved in acts of terror, proving that my statement which was quote, "A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists," to be correct because 0.000004267% is an extremely small percentage.
You then responded in this comment with a link to these statistics trying to prove my that my point which was and I quote,"A small percentage of extremists have caused violence," wrong. Why else would you link these statistics if not to disprove that statement? Anyways I again use your statistics to show that of the 19 million Muslims living in the EU, only 0.003779% were involved in terrorist acts in 2016 and 0.003711% in 2017, which is like I said, a small percentage.
In this comment you change the subject and put forth the claim that Muslims commit acts of terror at a higher rate (a claim that I at no point tried to refute). If anything this is you strawmanning me by intentionally misunderstanding my argument which was and I quote, "A small percentage of extremists have caused violence so no it is not natural to take revenge against innocent people who have nothing to do with those extremists."
I then clarify that in this comment.
You then said in this comment quote, "Great - I never made that point. All I said was that forced multiculturalism has been a disaster," referring to me saying, "I said not all Muslims are terrorists and that it’s a very small percentage committing these acts and the majority of them are completely innocent. Which I proved three times over using statistics you provided," in this comment. Except you did make that point in this comment when you said quote, "I did. I said that the islam has caused violence," blaming the ideology for the acts of a small percentage of extremists.
You then move on from that and bring up this study referencing the beliefs of Muslims in the countries of Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Malaysia, Morocco, Niger, Pakistan, Palestinian territories, Russia, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, and Uzbekistan, which are completely irrelevant to and in no way indicative of the beliefs of Muslims in the U.S. and Europe. As a matter of fact, that same article you linked said of Muslims in America, ""When that survey is compared with the global survey of Muslims, some key differences emerge between U.S. Muslims and Muslims in other countries. In general, American Muslims are more at ease in the contemporary world."
So now that I've provided you with extensive evidence that I have made no strawman arguments and was only responding to statements you've made, you can stop using it as a defense.
Freedom of speech, association, and markets have nothing to do with nationalism or globalism, so why the ideology of Classical Liberalism is relevant when it says nothing about immigration and Nationalism, I have no idea. And doofus. That's nice. Those 1st grade insults really support your claims.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
and you are incorrect - the link that you provided does not support your conclusions.
Then why the fuck are you responding to a simple question with 500 word essays? You are unable to support your original claim that T_D supported the psychopath that caused the NZ massacre. Furthermore, you seem unable to denounce the violence on both sides and concede that Islamic terrorism instigates psychopaths from murdering innocents on BOTH sides.
Yes. Integrating a traditionally anti-liberal culture with a liberal one has been a disaster, unless of course you are willing to accept that the level of violence committed on BOTH sides is an acceptable tradeoff. We are not talking about Vietnamese restaurants here.
That's fantastic - although the ones currently immigrating are not, it's only the ones that have been here for decades.
https://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/political-and-social-views/pf_2017-06-26_muslimamericans-04new-06/
They do when your national culture relies on classical liberalist ideals ya doofus.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Senator Anning said quote, "The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand in the first place. Let us be clear, while Muslims may have been the victims today, usually they are the perpetrators. World-wide, Muslims are killing people in the name of their faith on an industrial scale. The truth is that Islam is not like any other faith. It is the religious equivalent of fascism. And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless."
TL;DR The 49 people that died had it coming because a small group of extremists they have likely never met before have committed acts of terror in the name of their faith so it's their fault.
He places blame on innocent people and defends the shooter's motive.
That's what happens when you actually support your arguments
See above. At the very least the support the motive, if not the action.
Can I get a link to any comment where I have defended Islamic terrorists? I've been trying to defend the innocent people who have no involvement with terrorism. Just to be safe here's a formal condemnation of Islamic terrorists.
I condemn any and all Islamic terrorists and there actions.
Cool. Moving on.
Why are you placing blame on the innocent people integrating into the culture rather than the extremists who can't handle the integration?
Also worth noting that the point of that section was to show you an example of you saying that Islam causes violence in spite of the fact you've since gone on to deny saying its.
Well they had to have immigrated at some point. They haven't always been here for decades.
Rather than continuing to insult me maybe you could find somewhere in traditional classical liberal ideals in support of strict Nationalism.
Also seeing as how you didn't mention it, I'm assuming you are done with the whole strawman thing seeing as how I typed an 800 word comment completely debunking the idea? You kinda skated around it.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
I don't see any support for the NZ murderer in that paragraph - I see equal denouncement of both sides which is the correct position.
Try again.
I would have worded it differently, but in that is a far cry from full support for the murder of 49 people.
Good.
I'm not. I am placing blame on individuals that do not support western liberal values, immigrating to these countries and then trying to change that system, both politically and violently.
I have zero problems with anyone coming to the united states (my resident country) legally and through the same channels as everyone else - they have to respect our fundamental laws and principles.
I didn't say that there was - I said you could have a nation of laws, respect for those laws is nationalism and the laws can be ones that empower the individual - not government.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
The correct position is sole blame on the shooter because he is the one who committed the attack, and no blame on the victims because they did nothing wrong. You, Anning, and the people on T_D are looking for some way to blame the innocent Muslims and in turn alleviate blame from the shooter. There are no both sides. This was a one sided attack and the notion that there are two sides to blame is defense of the shooter.
Why does it have to be full support? Any support is too much support for a terrorist.
Just like how those 49 people in NZ immigrated legally and are completely innocent of any wrongdoing? I don't see why your position is relevant because there is no evidence that any of the 49 people do not support western ideals or that they tried to change them politically or violently, so by your own standards they deserve none of the blame.
Respect for laws is not nationalism. Nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. An ideal that again has absolutely no relation to classical liberalism
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
Instigated by global migration treaties and forced multiculturalism - stoked further by social and legacy media.
and that said, I hope this kid never sees the light of day again, dead or alive.
Except there was zero support for the terrorist, rather a the conditions that have led to this - and many other attacks.
Too soon would be more appropriate.
Did they? Are you trying to strawman me again into unrelated, victim blaming? I won't take the bait.
Of course it is. Respect for the preservation of national culture and laws is absolutely an ingredient of nationalism.
So you do not think the desire to uphold the rights codified within the US constitution is a nationalist intention? Especially considering it is the will of the globalists to usurp this document for UN law.
You have fallen for the "everyone who is a nationalist is a Nazi" trick.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
No. Instigated by him being fucking insane. You said yourself quote, "I have zero problems with anyone coming to the united states (my resident country) legally and through the same channels as everyone else." Seeing as these people entered the country legally and are completely innocent of any wrongdoing. The problem isn't their presence and they deserve no blame for being present. The blame is entirely the shooters for generalizing all Muslims as violent and harmful to society and thinking it's ok to kill them because of that bigoted generalization.
"The real cause of bloodshed on New Zealand streets today is the immigration program which allowed Muslim fanatics to migrate to New Zealand; And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless."
How is blaming the victims and alleviating any blame from the shooter not a form of defense? They are using the idea that some Muslims are violent as justification for the attack.
For fucks sake stop saying strawman. You're embarrassing yourself. You said quote, "I see equal denouncement of both sides which is the correct position." There's your victim blaming. No strawman. Both sides don't deserve equal blame. Any blame for the innocent victims is too much blame because again, they are innocent. Stop acting like I'm putting words in your mouth when I am directly quoting you.
That's not what you said. You said, "you could have a nation of laws, respect for those laws is nationalism." Which it's not. The statement, "Respect for the preservation of national culture and laws is absolutely an ingredient of nationalism," is absolutely true, but has nothing to do with Classical Liberalism. If anything classical liberalism would be allowing residents to practice and be a part of any culture they choose, seeing as classical liberalism is founded on the ideals of freedom and you really shouldn't care what culture your neighbors come from just as they have no business worrying about your culture. Live and let live, no? As long as nobody breaks any laws people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to and practicing Islam is not a crime in the U.S.
What rights would those be? The constitution is quite a long document and I need you to provide any portion of the constitution that argues against integration of different cultures. You can't just say the rights in the constitution. I need specifics my man.
Who did I call a Nazi? I said nationalism is a problematic ideal because of the part of the definition that says, "especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations." Although I will say any white nationalist is a Nazi, because they're essentially the same thing.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
I live in the United States - as far as I am aware we are not in any global migration pacts with the EU or the UN.
Well that - and that the left leaning legacy and social media is laughing about white people dying out in 100 years.
I am not taking the bait. I have no fact regarding any of the victims and neither do you.
. That's not what you said. You said, "you could have a nation of laws, respect for those laws is nationalism." Which it's not. The statement, "Respect for the preservation of national culture and laws is absolutely an ingredient of nationalism," is absolutely true, but has nothing to do with Classical Liberalism. If anything classical liberalism would be allowing residents to practice and be a part of any culture they choose, seeing as classical liberalism is founded on the ideals of freedom and you really shouldn't care what culture your neighbors come from just as they have no business worrying about your culture. Live and let live, no? As long as nobody breaks any laws people should be allowed to do whatever the hell they want to and practicing Islam is not a crime in the U.S.
Classical liberalism is a cultural in that it is a mix of laws, customs and philosophy - born out of the renaissance movement. While it is not exclusive to the United States - it is a part of its cultural foundation.
The most important ones as outlined in the Bill of Rights - specifically the right freedom of speech, association, religion, defense and due process.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Not sure how global migration pacts are relevant. I'm saying if you have no problem with people legally entering the U.S., you should have no problem with anybody legally entering any country. Yet you continue to assert that the Muslim victims should not have been in New Zealand in the first place.
We're laughing because in what fucking universe are white people going to die out in a hundred years? You're just scared of being a minority. Millions of other people get along just fine in their respective countries. You'll live. Not to mention why the fuck is any race entitled to land? You're white,no? They only land you are entitled to is the land you own. Chill with the white nationalism my guy.
You're right. You have no facts. So stop blaming them when they're completely innocent. Especially considering you won't even admit you blamed them in the first place. If you're gonna say some fucked up shit like that, don't pussy out when someone calls you on it. Double down or recant, don't play dumb.
Classical liberalism, Libertarianism and anything related have nothing to do with nationalism and most who follow these ideals are adamantly against nationalism.
No. The protection of free speech, association, religion, defense, and due process are not nationalistic ideals.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
Because they circumvent the legal process for processing immigrants.
Don't project your identitarianism onto me. Not once have I revealed to you what my race or ethnicity is.
I never claimed to have any facts regarding the victims of the NZ massacre - neither did the NZ politician that wrote the letter as your once example of "evidence"
You are the one in this conversation - from the beginning - that has been full of assertions and fake arguments driven by what it seems as an emotional need to further some identitarian agenda.
Of course it does - and this is why I called you a doofus.
Feck you're dense. No they are not exclusive to nationalism, but they might be ingredients of a nation that adopts those values and protects them.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
Generally non white people don't parrot white nationalist rhetoric so I don't think it was the craziest assumption.
No emotion involved. If you don't have facts regarding the victims, how can you or Anning claim they are guilty of anything?
I'm not the one who keeps making up statistics or "facts" to support my argument. But my arguments are fake? Nah I don't think so.
Please draw me the line from Classical Liberalism/Libertarianism to nationalism. You keep saying they are connected but have presented no evidence to prove it. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you.
Back with the insults because you have yet to prove anything you've claimed thus far.
Might be? Are they or are they not? You might be a child molester. I might be a billionaire. You literally just said those ideas aren't exclusive to nationalism, then tried to use them to back up your claim that the foundation of the United States is inherently nationalistic, but I'm the dense one. A white person might be racist, but that doesn't mean all white people are racist. A black person might be a criminal, but that doesn't mean all black people are criminals. You can't go two comments without contradicting yourself.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
Classical liberalism and the US constitution is white nationalist rhetoric.
Gotcha mate.
We didn't.
Just in this response you conflated western culture with white nationalism.
I have - multiple times.
Perhaps you should listen to others as opposed to just yourself.
A white person might be racist, but that doesn't mean all white people are racist. A black person might be a criminal, but that doesn't mean all black people are criminals. You can't go two comments without contradicting yourself.
Being a child molestor might be an ingrediant of nationalism, if a nation's interest is to rape children.
Being a billionaire might be an ingredient of nationalism if that nation's interest is capitalism.
Of course it was - then it proceeded to fight many wars, both economic and kinetic in order to maintain that fact.
I have no clue what you are blabbering about here - nationalism, like capitalism is an amoral system that is only a template for whatever principles and philosophies are in its composition.
Globalism also falls into that category - but at this moment in human history what is best is many different competing systems that try to persuade each other through example. My feeling is, and this is completely subjective - is that if we rush in globalism now - it would be run by idiotic ideologies and we would jump right into global totalitarianism.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
No. Saying that white people are going extinct and we need to take measures to protect the white race is white nationalist rhetoric. Where you got the idea that I think classical liberalism and the constitution are white nationalist rhetoric is beyond me. Especially considering I've said multiple times that classical liberalism and nationalism of any form have no connection and even asked you to provide me with a connection between the two.
"And just because the followers of this savage belief were not the killers in this instance, does not make them blameless."
Direct quote from Anning, from the statement you said you agreed with, so yes, you did.
No. I didn't. I said the idea of white genocide and the necessity of protecting the white race was white nationalism. Because it is.
No you haven't. I keep asking you how they are related and you give me completely unsourced nonsense about how classical liberalism is the same as nationalism and I don't get it because I'm a "doofus." Like I said the burden of proof is on you because you made the claim. Let me see some Adam Smith, John Locke, and Jean-Baptiste Say quotes about how nationalism and classical liberalism are related.
This means nothing. I asked you for concrete proof from the constitution, which need I remind you, you claimed existed, that supports nationalism. All you've given me is a hypothetical about how a nationalistic country might have rights to free speech.
So which wars would those be? Would it be when we joined WW1 to help Europe or joined WW2's western front to help Europe? Or maybe the Korean war we joined solely to protect South Korea, or what about the Vietnam war we fought to help protect South Vietnam? Yeah all of this free money we've given away has definitely been done solely with our own interests in mind. So nationalistic.
You said, "No they are not exclusive to nationalism, but they might be ingredients of a nation that adopts those values and protects them." I asked you to tell me how the bill of rights directly supports nationalistic ideals, and you told me a nationalistic country might have free speech. I didn't ask you for maybes. I asked for concrete proof and you have yet to provide any. A lot of things might be true, but that doesn't make them true. You can't support your argument with a hypothetical maybe of something that could exist. Those aren't facts and it's not evidence.
You agree with the point I made I made in this comment 20 hours ago where I said, "Nationalism and Globalism are not black and white. There is a large grey area in between. Obviously we have to make some sacrifices for the good of our country, but pure nationalism is a complete disregard for anybody outside of your nation. Which is a problem." Glad we found some common ground.
I agree. Nationalism and Globalism are both bad in their purest forms. We need a balance. We can't be completely selfless and help everybody else to our own detriment, and we can't be completely selfish and have no regard for anybody else to the detriment to other countries. Just like capitalism and socialism. Pure capitalism gives us monopolies and 8 year olds losing fingers in factories they work in 12 hours a day for 3 cents a week. All about balance. Again, glad we could find some common ground.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
Don't tell me - tell Salon.com
Too soon.
It is - but its a non-issue because the people that actually think that way and have influence are microscopic.
I never said that - my position is that white supremacy, collectivism, individualism or even classical liberalism can all have nationalism as an ingredient.
I do not agree based on that spectrum because that assumes that nationalism equates to isolationism - which is horseshit. I do agree there are no absolutes - but its difficult to define a metric between say, collectivism and individualism when they contrast each other significantly.
The problem here is when you usurp globalist law with nationalist law - you end up with violent division. Case in point - the current state of the EU.
Like it or not - people are inherently tribal. There is no tribe called 'earth' at the moment - and there won't be for a very long time.
1 drob2499 2019-03-16
They're racist. It happens. You get used to it and it's a minority opinion. It's not the end of the world and people of color have been dealing with it for as long as America has existed.
Nice dodge but you didn't disprove my point.
Not really. There are multiple people who have become famous for pushing this ideology, Richard Spencer of course being the most famous one. It's also a rhetoric that's been echoed all over the internet on places like /pol/ and T_D (even though that has been proven false, there have been no reported links between the race of the farmers and attack rate, and the attacks are more than likely financially motivated).
I agree, but that's not what you said you said, "When I talk to you about preserving culture, I am not referring to white nationalism, that's YOUR strawman - I am referring to western classical liberalism." And I asked you to tell me when Adam, Smith, John Locke, or any other Classical Liberal figure said anything about the preservation of culture. And you didn't. At no point did I say nationalism couldn't coexist with classical liberal ideals, I said it wasn't a component of classical liberalism.
No. It doesn't. For the third time, the definition of nationalism is identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Nothing is mentioned or implied about isolationism so I have no idea where you keep getting that from. I said pure nationalism disregards the well being of other nations. Which is the bolded part of the dictionary definition of nationalism.
The EU is fine right now. There isn't some sort of ongoing race war. Some people are ok with immigration, some aren't. Luckily for them, they live in democracies and some candidates run on an anti immigration platform, while others are either pro immigration or indifferent. If the anti immigration candidate wins, then the majority of the people are against immigration, if the pro immigration candidate wins, the majority of people don't care about foreign immigration. Cultural integration isn't inherently right or wrong, it's up to people to decide how they feel about it, and they do so by voting. Just like how the majority of Americans voted for Trump and he in turn put measures in place (Muslim ban) to stop immigration like the people who voted for him wanted.
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
I agree with you, i'll add that this doesn't support your original statement that T_D supports the NZ mass murderer.
Richard Spencer is a political hack that has lept from GWB Jr to Obama to Trump to now Yang.
That said - whatever he believes in he is not the mainstream.
Yes, preserving western liberal values
Well there you go - I never said it was a requirement either. We come to an agreement.
But if trade of goods, services, ingenuity, technology benefits two nations - why can't they both be nationalist?
I think we can use a little nationalism when it comes to China, assuming you live in the US or Canada.
Why is that relevant? Why would any one country be beholden to the welfare of another country?
I am not discounting welfare or charity - but why is this unbalanced bargain assumed?
Then why are eurosceptic movements building at rapid pace, in your opinon? More conspiracy theories? More imaginary white power movements?
Its because germany tried and is failing to conquer europe for a third time in nearly 100 years.
1 [deleted] 2019-03-16
[removed]
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
No you doofus - the freedom of speech, association and markets
1 estonianman 2019-03-16
By the way - your original point has been proven wrong.
Now find me someone on T_D that hasn't been downvoted or deleted that supports the NZ terrorist.
1 Ridwando 2019-03-16
A subreddit that collectively denies climate change, clings on to Seth Rich conspiracies, and revels in islamophobia right after a terrible tragedy (e.g. the glorification of the horrible Fraser Anning letter) - yep, I can get behind banning that subreddit and all the pieces of shit in it.
1 DeathSlyce 2019-03-16
Kind of like how every single leftist sub clings to saying people with penises are biologically women, clinging on to ShareBlue conspiracies, and revels in Whitephobia, Androphobia, Hoplophobia, and christophobia right after a tragedy. Yep I can get behind banning all leftist subreddits.
1 Ridwando 2019-03-16
Glorious whataboutism. Not to mention, extremely dishonest. There is a difference in degree. The Donald is full of extremist pieces of shit, while most comparable leftist subreddits only have conspiracy idiots on the fringe.
Christophobia, hoplophobia, lol. Get fucked, snowflake.
1 DeathSlyce 2019-03-16
Every leftist sub is filled with extremists.
All of those are real things and are very prominent in the left. You are the snowflake because you can't stand that I'm correct
1 Ridwando 2019-03-16
I wonder if you realize how lost and deluded you are. And whether you will ever realize how misguided your worldview is, and how you have been conned by a transparent charlatan. Deluded moronic Trumpsters are fascinating.
1 plurpnslurp 2019-03-16
Sticks and stones will break my bones but mean words will really oof me
1 Ed_ButteredToast 2019-03-16
😴😴😴
1 munstersthompson 2019-03-16
“well good evening philadelphia, tonight we have a chilling story developing as we speak on the internet, we warn you: the following may be graphic to some of our viewers. thanks to a scoop phoned in from infamous child porn website reddit user giganticfaggot96 we’ve learned that there are people on the internet who are fired up about fundamentalist islamic terrorism! even more disturbing, these same people are actually supporters of the president, donald trump.”
1 IDFSHILL 2019-03-16
Weird, cuz when I do that I see all of the above subs, and also various leftoid subs like AHS. Almost like you're both absurdly stupid people with no idea what you're talking about.