• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Rapefugee lied about his age to get to stay in Germany, ...

This is exactly the tactic that the Russian bots were programmed to use.. Talk of DACA comes to the public discourse... publish anti-immigration article (that may or may not be true) about how someone abused it somewhere else.
 
We are getting ebbs and flows on white extremism. However they don't do well in the ballot box.
The point about Islamic societies, there are reformists (just like Christianity experienced) but they don't get much coverage. ISIS etc has free advertising 24/7

Don't change the topic. You argued that people lying about Muslims raping women, or spreading false information, didn't have consequences. Well... it does.

This is the topic. White extremists are noisy but carry little weight in the ballot box. The media inflates this paper tiger. Occasionally a white racist party gains seats. However, post war they end up splintering due to in-fighting. I can't remember saying these things don't have consequences. If we closed down media for spreading false information, then we wouldn't have any media.
 
Don't change the topic. You argued that people lying about Muslims raping women, or spreading false information, didn't have consequences. Well... it does.

This is the topic. White extremists are noisy but carry little weight in the ballot box. The media inflates this paper tiger. Occasionally a white racist party gains seats. However, post war they end up splintering due to in-fighting. I can't remember saying these things don't have consequences. If we closed down media for spreading false information, then we wouldn't have any media.

So leftists are worse?

I think the main problem is the degree of bullshit being spread. The lack of fact checking. The extreme polarisation that this is bringing. I don't see sides. There's no winners here. There's just losers.
 
This is the topic. White extremists are noisy but carry little weight in the ballot box. The media inflates this paper tiger. Occasionally a white racist party gains seats. However, post war they end up splintering due to in-fighting. I can't remember saying these things don't have consequences. If we closed down media for spreading false information, then we wouldn't have any media.

So leftists are worse?

I think the main problem is the degree of bullshit being spread. The lack of fact checking. The extreme polarisation that this is bringing. I don't see sides. There's no winners here. There's just losers.

Correct.
You are looking for logical and rational thinking. For the ultra-left and ultra-right there is none or virtually none. Media also slants stories. It's a matter of rummaging in the trough to see if there is an odd pearl of wisdom here and there.
 
This is the topic. White extremists are noisy but carry little weight in the ballot box. The media inflates this paper tiger. Occasionally a white racist party gains seats. However, post war they end up splintering due to in-fighting. I can't remember saying these things don't have consequences. If we closed down media for spreading false information, then we wouldn't have any media.

I think the main problem is the degree of bullshit being spread. The lack of fact checking. The extreme polarisation that this is bringing. I don't see sides. There's no winners here. There's just losers.

I agree 100%.

It's amazing seeing what simply gets repeated without any thought.
 
So leftists are worse?

I think the main problem is the degree of bullshit being spread. The lack of fact checking. The extreme polarisation that this is bringing. I don't see sides. There's no winners here. There's just losers.

Correct.
You are looking for logical and rational thinking. For the ultra-left and ultra-right there is none or virtually none. Media also slants stories. It's a matter of rummaging in the trough to see if there is an odd pearl of wisdom here and there.

I think that's insane. One side is violent and openly racist. The other side just wants everybody to get along. One side sees threats where there are none. One is possibly a tad naive.

Both the right and the left generalise grossly, but the damage caused by leftist eror in generalisation are minor. While the rights brain failures are down right dangerous.

Right now the right is a threat to western democracy. They're the single greatest threat since the fall of Nazi Germany. The left isn't a threat to anyone.

No, the left is not as bad. Not even nearly.
 
Correct.
You are looking for logical and rational thinking. For the ultra-left and ultra-right there is none or virtually none. Media also slants stories. It's a matter of rummaging in the trough to see if there is an odd pearl of wisdom here and there.

I think that's insane. One side is violent and openly racist. The other side just wants everybody to get along. One side sees threats where there are none. One is possibly a tad naive.

Both the right and the left generalise grossly, but the damage caused by leftist eror in generalisation are minor. While the rights brain failures are down right dangerous.

Right now the right is a threat to western democracy. They're the single greatest threat since the fall of Nazi Germany. The left isn't a threat to anyone.

No, the left is not as bad. Not even nearly.

In general those to the left of Nazis tend towards getting along. Socialism is not a threat to democracy. However when passing the left wing and entering the ultra-left then suppression of free speech, political correctness and violence to achieve such ends is bar racialism pretty much the same. Political discrimination would be prevalent. We see in UK universities it is okay to condemn Israel but not to condemn ISIS. Stalin killed millions so did Hitler. In the USA the ultra-left has defined Republicans as fascist but never give specifics.
The general behaviour in the USA shows the turbulence is from the Ultra-left, particularly by anarchist groups.

My views are generally towards the left. I would support Labour rather than Conservative in the UK. Social housing and a functional National Health Service and aiming for free education up to University completion are ideal objectives. Efficiency in operation is essential towards achieving this. Racial distinctions/discrimination is simply addressing our primeval fears. Taken to extremes socialism is as repressive as National Socialism. Political incorrectness is addressed with psychiatric treatment in China.
 
Last edited:
I think that's insane. One side is violent and openly racist. The other side just wants everybody to get along. One side sees threats where there are none. One is possibly a tad naive.

Both the right and the left generalise grossly, but the damage caused by leftist eror in generalisation are minor. While the rights brain failures are down right dangerous.

Right now the right is a threat to western democracy. They're the single greatest threat since the fall of Nazi Germany. The left isn't a threat to anyone.

No, the left is not as bad. Not even nearly.

In general those to the left of Nazis tend towards getting along. Socialism is not a threat to democracy. However when passing the left wing and entering the ultra-left then suppression of free speech, political correctness and violence to achieve such ends is bar racialism pretty much the same. Political discrimination would be prevalent. We see in UK universities it is okay to condemn Israel but not to condemn ISIS. Stalin killed millions so did Hitler. In the USA the ultra-left has defined Republicans as fascist but never give specifics.
The general behaviour in the USA shows the turbulence is from the Ultra-left, particularly by anarchist groups.

I'm sorry, but that's insane. The lefts curbing on free speech is a problem. Still a small problem. We can still successfully ignore it. It's really only an actual problem within liberal arts academia. Hard science... zero problem. Outside academia... no impact. And the left isn't violent. The right are violent. What do you think has a greater real effect on freedom of speech, risking getting an angry post on Facebook or getting punched in the face?

Virtually everybody is left of Nazism. Nazism is an extreme right wing movement. So I'm not sure what you mean?

Of course leftist intellectuals condemn ISIS more than Israel. What garbage media are you consuming to get you that twisted idea of the left?

Again... your failure to understand the lefts accusation of Republican fascism is just down to your laziness. The most popular leftist definition of fascism comes from the author of Umberto Ecco. Bush Jr flirted with fascist rhetoric. Trump went all the way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco

And it's not all Republicans. It's some Republican politicians. Please refrain from straw manning.

Who gives a shit what any leftist anarchist groups want today? They're a teeny tiny minority within the left. It's been almost a hundred years since any serious anarchist terror attack. They're harmless today. I also think that the term organised anarchism (which a group is) is inherently funny. It's just a straw man.

You can't compare them in terms of danger. The left isn't a threat to anything or anyone. Having a debate on gender pronouns and if trannies should be able to pee in the ladies bathroom isn't a threat to the western way of life and our democratic freedoms. Trumps changes of laws to allow his 1% buddies to enrich themselves at the expense of democratic freedoms, is way more problematic. His refusal to answer any relevant topics, and just deflect it away on the Mooslems and southern darkies is a democratic problem.
 
In general those to the left of Nazis tend towards getting along. Socialism is not a threat to democracy. However when passing the left wing and entering the ultra-left then suppression of free speech, political correctness and violence to achieve such ends is bar racialism pretty much the same. Political discrimination would be prevalent. We see in UK universities it is okay to condemn Israel but not to condemn ISIS. Stalin killed millions so did Hitler. In the USA the ultra-left has defined Republicans as fascist but never give specifics.
The general behaviour in the USA shows the turbulence is from the Ultra-left, particularly by anarchist groups.

I'm sorry, but that's insane. The lefts curbing on free speech is a problem. Still a small problem. We can still successfully ignore it. It's really only an actual problem within liberal arts academia. Hard science... zero problem. Outside academia... no impact. And the left isn't violent. The right are violent. What do you think has a greater real effect on freedom of speech, risking getting an angry post on Facebook or getting punched in the face?

Virtually everybody is left of Nazism. Nazism is an extreme right wing movement. So I'm not sure what you mean?

Of course leftist intellectuals condemn ISIS more than Israel. What garbage media are you consuming to get you that twisted idea of the left?

Again... your failure to understand the lefts accusation of Republican fascism is just down to your laziness. The most popular leftist definition of fascism comes from the author of Umberto Ecco. Bush Jr flirted with fascist rhetoric. Trump went all the way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco

And it's not all Republicans. It's some Republican politicians. Please refrain from straw manning.

Who gives a shit what any leftist anarchist groups want today? They're a teeny tiny minority within the left. It's been almost a hundred years since any serious anarchist terror attack. They're harmless today. I also think that the term organised anarchism (which a group is) is inherently funny. It's just a straw man.

You can't compare them in terms of danger. The left isn't a threat to anything or anyone. Having a debate on gender pronouns and if trannies should be able to pee in the ladies bathroom isn't a threat to the western way of life and our democratic freedoms. Trumps changes of laws to allow his 1% buddies to enrich themselves at the expense of democratic freedoms, is way more problematic. His refusal to answer any relevant topics, and just deflect it away on the Mooslems and southern darkies is a democratic problem.

Disparity benefits moderates. They can talk and sometimes influence each other. Fanatics don’t have this luxury. I consider us both moderates even if some of my views appear off the wall.

The ultra left of course is prone to opposing free speech and political correctness. Likewise the ultra-right. They see situations in black and white with no shades of difference. Of course most are left of Nazi-ism as this is a sometimes noisy minority even today. Dinesh D’Souza (conservative) claims fascists are rooted in the left wing. He states. “Fascism at its core is the ideology of the centralized state”.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...95cfeab15f8a8a012e2ce6331554b910&action=click

That’s his view. My view is they become more indistinguishable from each other as they go more extreme.

Much of the ultra-left is of course hovering around campuses but the Communist groups do try to influence the union movement and other worker’s groups.
Redefining Fascism to serve a particular doctrine doesn’t mean non-fascists become fascists. The ultra-left will now include the Republican Party and of course Trump.
I think you’re right about the anarchists and ultra-left. They are a noisy minority and while I believe they did stir up some interest, their antics have isolated them. However they were gaining traction from news media.

Pelosi was wise to condemn ANTIFA.

Nazism in Europe is still very small. The right wing groups in Europe are not so focused on race. Surprisingly Marie Le Pen is wooing Muslims. The Dutch Freedom Party d one black atheist MP as a member but she is now living in the USA. The UKIP has Asian and African members and fielded Asian and African candidates.
My views on immigration are about space not race. Our housing is currently in short supply but we do as a nation owe reparations for refugees as a result of the Blair/Bush crusades.

There are some good points in Sharia civil law and some years ago I launched a thread in favour of it. It is legal in the UK conditional to the Arbitration Act.
 
Disparity benefits moderates. They can talk and sometimes influence each other. Fanatics don’t have this luxury. I consider us both moderates even if some of my views appear off the wall.

That's an excellent point. We're all moderates in our own heads. But thanks for seeing me as a moderate. But does that tell me more about you than me?

The ultra left of course is prone to opposing free speech and political correctness. Likewise the ultra-right. They see situations in black and white with no shades of difference. Of course most are left of Nazi-ism as this is a sometimes noisy minority even today.

I don't agree at all. The left see way too much nuance. They see so much nuance, they completely miss the big picture. They're moral relativists. They take up positions that are mutually exclusive because they don't want to offend anyone. "ie, your behaviour as a man is not genetically pre-programmed, it's all a choice. Unless you are homosexual. That's all genetic". They only see difference and subtle nuance everywhere. To the point where they become paralyzed.

Dinesh D’Souza (conservative) claims fascists are rooted in the left wing. He states. “Fascism at its core is the ideology of the centralized state”.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...95cfeab15f8a8a012e2ce6331554b910&action=click

That’s his view. My view is they become more indistinguishable from each other as they go more extreme.

That's just newspeak. He's taking a word with negative connotations and with a right wing associations, and trying to change the meaning of it to associate it with the left instead. That's a common tactic among fascists. They did (and do it) all the time. It's on Ecco's list of things that distinguishes fascism.

The guy was an advisor to Ronald Reagan. A guy who is mostly famous for making America rich simply by using America's credit card to pay for consumption. Brilliant.

The terms left and right comes from the French revolutionary parliament (national assembly). The speaker was in the front and there was two sets of chairs. One to the right and one to the left.

The left were liberals and the right were conservatives.

Conservatives thought traditions, and the way we've always done things was probably the best. They liked things that were tried and tested. Conservatives tended to think liberals were a wee bit too enthusiastic, idealistic and unrealistic.

The liberals thought that if we keep things the way they are they will stay the same, and since things are shit now, it's just a guarantee that things keep staying shitty. They thought conservatives were stuffy and annoying cowards, more ruled by fear than the dreams/hopes of possibilities.

This division is still the same everywhere.

While the Nazis were in some aspect socialists, they were NOT liberal. Communists on the other hand were liberal as hell. But hey, you may react. Communism and Nazism seems pretty damn similar. They were both authoritarian. Should both be on the same side? No. Because you had authoritarians both on the left and the right side of the French parliament. The degree of authoritarianism is irrelevant for the left right scale. As is freedom of speech. The Nazis saw themselves as radically conservative. How confusing is that? The truth is probably that the Nazis were centrist. Their policies were a mix of classically conservative and socialist ideas.

Dinesh D’Souza is just talking shit, and I'm sure he's aware of it. What he is doing is propaganda.

Much of the ultra-left is of course hovering around campuses but the Communist groups do try to influence the union movement and other worker’s groups.
Redefining Fascism to serve a particular doctrine doesn’t mean non-fascists become fascists. The ultra-left will now include the Republican Party and of course Trump.
I think you’re right about the anarchists and ultra-left. They are a noisy minority and while I believe they did stir up some interest, their antics have isolated them. However they were gaining traction from news media.

Bah. Communism is dead. Communism has never been anything than a tiny fringe movement in USA. Unions aren't inherently socialist. Certainly not in USA. Socialist unions tend to see themselves as partners with the capitalists. They meet company owners as equal partners with the shared goal of making the company strong. Unions in USA and England have been more adversarial, and have historically just tried to bleed the company on as much money as possible. That's not socialism IMHO. And I doubt many of the American unionists identify as socialist.

Leftists on American college campuses are more likely to be social justice warriors. It's something completely different.

I think Trump is a fascist. Let's take a look at Ecco's list....

And didn't have to... since sombody else took the trouble to make a video about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mAG-0PKpgE

Pelosi was wise to condemn ANTIFA.

Still just a bunch of weed smoking hooligans that aren't a threat to anyone.

Nazism in Europe is still very small. The right wing groups in Europe are not so focused on race. Surprisingly Marie Le Pen is wooing Muslims. The Dutch Freedom Party d one black atheist MP as a member but she is now living in the USA. The UKIP has Asian and African members and fielded Asian and African candidates.
My views on immigration are about space not race. Our housing is currently in short supply but we do as a nation owe reparations for refugees as a result of the Blair/Bush crusades.

It's because modern Nazis call themselves something different. Marie Le Pen is the same shit. The Swedish Sweden Democrats have support from 1/3 of the electorate. That's not insignificant considering they're a fascist political party.

Fascism isn't inherently racist. Fascism is just a way to spin the public discourse to get yourself power. What makes fascism so singularly dangerous is that it has no ideas. It's an empty ideology. It's all spin and bullshit. It's all about blaming others and not taking any responsibility yourself.

There are some good points in Sharia civil law and some years ago I launched a thread in favour of it. It is legal in the UK conditional to the Arbitration Act.

I'm not sure why you brought this up? Is this the "I know a black guy defense" to prove you're not racist/Islamophobic?
 
The name of this thread should be: The world is not perfect. Damn those heinous Muslims!
 
That's an excellent point. We're all moderates in our own heads. But thanks for seeing me as a moderate. But does that tell me more about you than me?

The ultra left of course is prone to opposing free speech and political correctness. Likewise the ultra-right. They see situations in black and white with no shades of difference. Of course most are left of Nazi-ism as this is a sometimes noisy minority even today.

I don't agree at all. The left see way too much nuance. They see so much nuance, they completely miss the big picture. They're moral relativists. They take up positions that are mutually exclusive because they don't want to offend anyone. "ie, your behaviour as a man is not genetically pre-programmed, it's all a choice. Unless you are homosexual. That's all genetic". They only see difference and subtle nuance everywhere. To the point where they become paralyzed.

Dinesh D’Souza (conservative) claims fascists are rooted in the left wing. He states. “Fascism at its core is the ideology of the centralized state”.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/...95cfeab15f8a8a012e2ce6331554b910&action=click

That’s his view. My view is they become more indistinguishable from each other as they go more extreme.

That's just newspeak. He's taking a word with negative connotations and with a right wing associations, and trying to change the meaning of it to associate it with the left instead. That's a common tactic among fascists. They did (and do it) all the time. It's on Ecco's list of things that distinguishes fascism.

The guy was an advisor to Ronald Reagan. A guy who is mostly famous for making America rich simply by using America's credit card to pay for consumption. Brilliant.

The terms left and right comes from the French revolutionary parliament (national assembly). The speaker was in the front and there was two sets of chairs. One to the right and one to the left.

The left were liberals and the right were conservatives.

Conservatives thought traditions, and the way we've always done things was probably the best. They liked things that were tried and tested. Conservatives tended to think liberals were a wee bit too enthusiastic, idealistic and unrealistic.

The liberals thought that if we keep things the way they are they will stay the same, and since things are shit now, it's just a guarantee that things keep staying shitty. They thought conservatives were stuffy and annoying cowards, more ruled by fear than the dreams/hopes of possibilities.

This division is still the same everywhere.

While the Nazis were in some aspect socialists, they were NOT liberal. Communists on the other hand were liberal as hell. But hey, you may react. Communism and Nazism seems pretty damn similar. They were both authoritarian. Should both be on the same side? No. Because you had authoritarians both on the left and the right side of the French parliament. The degree of authoritarianism is irrelevant for the left right scale. As is freedom of speech. The Nazis saw themselves as radically conservative. How confusing is that? The truth is probably that the Nazis were centrist. Their policies were a mix of classically conservative and socialist ideas.

Dinesh D’Souza is just talking shit, and I'm sure he's aware of it. What he is doing is propaganda.

Much of the ultra-left is of course hovering around campuses but the Communist groups do try to influence the union movement and other worker’s groups.
Redefining Fascism to serve a particular doctrine doesn’t mean non-fascists become fascists. The ultra-left will now include the Republican Party and of course Trump.
I think you’re right about the anarchists and ultra-left. They are a noisy minority and while I believe they did stir up some interest, their antics have isolated them. However they were gaining traction from news media.

Bah. Communism is dead. Communism has never been anything than a tiny fringe movement in USA. Unions aren't inherently socialist. Certainly not in USA. Socialist unions tend to see themselves as partners with the capitalists. They meet company owners as equal partners with the shared goal of making the company strong. Unions in USA and England have been more adversarial, and have historically just tried to bleed the company on as much money as possible. That's not socialism IMHO. And I doubt many of the American unionists identify as socialist.

Leftists on American college campuses are more likely to be social justice warriors. It's something completely different.

I think Trump is a fascist. Let's take a look at Ecco's list....

And didn't have to... since sombody else took the trouble to make a video about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mAG-0PKpgE

Pelosi was wise to condemn ANTIFA.

Still just a bunch of weed smoking hooligans that aren't a threat to anyone.

Nazism in Europe is still very small. The right wing groups in Europe are not so focused on race. Surprisingly Marie Le Pen is wooing Muslims. The Dutch Freedom Party d one black atheist MP as a member but she is now living in the USA. The UKIP has Asian and African members and fielded Asian and African candidates.
My views on immigration are about space not race. Our housing is currently in short supply but we do as a nation owe reparations for refugees as a result of the Blair/Bush crusades.

It's because modern Nazis call themselves something different. Marie Le Pen is the same shit. The Swedish Sweden Democrats have support from 1/3 of the electorate. That's not insignificant considering they're a fascist political party.

Fascism isn't inherently racist. Fascism is just a way to spin the public discourse to get yourself power. What makes fascism so singularly dangerous is that it has no ideas. It's an empty ideology. It's all spin and bullshit. It's all about blaming others and not taking any responsibility yourself.

There are some good points in Sharia civil law and some years ago I launched a thread in favour of it. It is legal in the UK conditional to the Arbitration Act.

I'm not sure why you brought this up? Is this the "I know a black guy defense" to prove you're not racist/Islamophobic?

My post 104 where you asked, "so leftists are worse?" My reply 'correct' referred to the pursuant paragraph and not meant to suggest ultra-leftists are worse, but potentially as bad.

The association with fascism and socialism was really an opinion of Shapiro. However societies where socialism managed by extremists such as in China and and Russia, also ended up with high body counts like the Third Reich. Extremist societies as these evolve politically correct protocol and controlling the media, education and even using religion in some cases as a vehicle.
 
My post 104 where you asked, "so leftists are worse?" My reply 'correct' referred to the pursuant paragraph and not meant to suggest ultra-leftists are worse, but potentially as bad.


The association with fascism and socialism was really an opinion of Shapiro. However societies where socialism managed by extremists such as in China and and Russia, also ended up with high body counts like the Third Reich. Extremist societies as these evolve politically correct protocol and controlling the media, education and even using religion in some cases as a vehicle.

High body count isn't relevant. Nor is it this guy's opinion. If it is he's an idiot, and I don't think he is. This is just a piece in a propaganda war, where the goal is to besmirch the opponents as much as possible. To create false associations. Social welfare does not lead to a high body count. Subsidized higher education does not lead to concentration camps. Crime prevention (as opposed to just having harsh sentences) does not lead to the downfall of democracy.

Communists aren't ultra ultra super mega leftists. A communist isn't any more left than I am. The extreme left isn't inherently authoritarian. On the extreme left we also find anarchists. Well... you can't get more anti-authoritarian than that. On the extreme right we have libertarians. But also fascists.

The term ultra or extreme in politics is more a measurement of the degree of radical change they want. Or how radically they want to stop change, as in the conservatives point of view. It's not a measurement of how violent that group is. It is when it comes to nazi and fascist groups, because violence is part of the ideology. Martin Luther King was an extremist in his day. A peaceful extremist. People on the extreme left are often pacifists. Not a threat.

Fascists use intimidation tactics to scare their opponents to silence. I think the current Antifa trend is just a reaction to that. Because peaceful protests aren't working against the modern day equivalent of brown shirts.

You can't compare the movements in terms of threat level. The left is completely harmless today. And thinking that they're potentially as bad is deluded IMHO
 
The association with fascism and socialism was really an opinion of Shapiro. However societies where socialism managed by extremists such as in China and and Russia, also ended up with high body counts like the Third Reich. Extremist societies as these evolve politically correct protocol and controlling the media, education and even using religion in some cases as a vehicle.

High body count isn't relevant. Nor is it this guy's opinion. If it is he's an idiot, and I don't think he is. This is just a piece in a propaganda war, where the goal is to besmirch the opponents as much as possible. To create false associations. Social welfare does not lead to a high body count. Subsidized higher education does not lead to concentration camps. Crime prevention (as opposed to just having harsh sentences) does not lead to the downfall of democracy.

Communists aren't ultra ultra super mega leftists. A communist isn't any more left than I am. The extreme left isn't inherently authoritarian. On the extreme left we also find anarchists. Well... you can't get more anti-authoritarian than that. On the extreme right we have libertarians. But also fascists.

The term ultra or extreme in politics is more a measurement of the degree of radical change they want. Or how radically they want to stop change, as in the conservatives point of view. It's not a measurement of how violent that group is. It is when it comes to nazi and fascist groups, because violence is part of the ideology. Martin Luther King was an extremist in his day. A peaceful extremist. People on the extreme left are often pacifists. Not a threat.

Fascists use intimidation tactics to scare their opponents to silence. I think the current Antifa trend is just a reaction to that. Because peaceful protests aren't working against the modern day equivalent of brown shirts.

You can't compare the movements in terms of threat level. The left is completely harmless today. And thinking that they're potentially as bad is deluded IMHO

Leftists isnt violent? What a big pile of crap that was!
Ever heard of ”the revolution”? in the 70-ies my father was on the deathlist of Kmpl(r). In sweden! FFS. Time to wake up...
 
High body count isn't relevant. Nor is it this guy's opinion. If it is he's an idiot, and I don't think he is. This is just a piece in a propaganda war, where the goal is to besmirch the opponents as much as possible. To create false associations. Social welfare does not lead to a high body count. Subsidized higher education does not lead to concentration camps. Crime prevention (as opposed to just having harsh sentences) does not lead to the downfall of democracy.

Communists aren't ultra ultra super mega leftists. A communist isn't any more left than I am. The extreme left isn't inherently authoritarian. On the extreme left we also find anarchists. Well... you can't get more anti-authoritarian than that. On the extreme right we have libertarians. But also fascists.

The term ultra or extreme in politics is more a measurement of the degree of radical change they want. Or how radically they want to stop change, as in the conservatives point of view. It's not a measurement of how violent that group is. It is when it comes to nazi and fascist groups, because violence is part of the ideology. Martin Luther King was an extremist in his day. A peaceful extremist. People on the extreme left are often pacifists. Not a threat.

Fascists use intimidation tactics to scare their opponents to silence. I think the current Antifa trend is just a reaction to that. Because peaceful protests aren't working against the modern day equivalent of brown shirts.

You can't compare the movements in terms of threat level. The left is completely harmless today. And thinking that they're potentially as bad is deluded IMHO

Leftists isnt violent? What a big pile of crap that was!
Ever heard of ”the revolution”? in the 70-ies my father was on the deathlist of Kmpl(r). In sweden! FFS. Time to wake up...

Not relevant today. All these violent leftist revolutionary movements in Europe all died together with USSR. And even at their peak it was mostly just noise. Even in the 70'ies Nazis were always way more dangerous. I remember the Neo Nazi skinheads of the early 80'ies. They were actually dangerous, and a menace to everyone. Anarchist punks of the same period were completely harmless. They just smelled funny.

Also, 70'ies communist revolutionaries sucked. Since leftist terror groups so far have never killed anybody in Sweden outside the West German embassy I'm assuming your father didn't die at the hands of Swedish communists?

And lets stay in Sweden. Nearly all terror attacks or political violence in Sweden is right wing. Just a single terror attack in 1975 was left wing. The rest is right wing. In Sweden the Swedish police focus almost entirely on Nazis rather than Muslims or leftists, because the Nazis are a way bigger terror threat. And have always been. But just for the record, Islamic terror is also right wing terror.

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

Just the fact that leftist anger is directed to the powerful, who can afford to protect themselves, and would have to anyway, makes it less of a problem. Right wing anger is directed towards already weak groups in society. People who at best are vulnerable and who would be prohibitively expensive for society to protect.

Right wing terror is a problem. Left wing terror isn't. Equating them is being dishonest. Even seeing them as potentially being as problematic is wrong. The left can be annoying. But they're probably not going to hurt anyone. The BLM police attacks are anomalous. Lets worry if it becomes a trend. Until then I'm going to relax
 
So it's better to keep rapists rather than listen to another point of view?

False equivalent. It's got to do with how to minimise harm. Derec is spreading events out of context and trying to create associations and causalities where there are none. That's basically a lie. The spreading of lies can be as harmful as rape, if it leads to unwarranted reactions.

I think it's fair to compare the idea of Muslim refugees/immigrants as rapists (or more inclined to rape) with how Jews were portrayed by the Nazis.

Whenever we vilify any group of people the first choice is to bring suspicions about that groups abnormal sexual behaviours. Most often we try to create animalistic associations. Like that group is less good at controlling their sexuality. What causes offence depends on what the norms are at that time. The vilified group will invariably occupy whatever is the most immoral association.

So whenever a groups sexual behaviours are put into question we need to take a step back and ask ourselves if it's true. The statistics are freely available on the sexual behaviours of refugees in many countries. In Sweden we don't collect statistics on religion, ethnicity or alternative nationalities. But they do in Germany and Denmark. So we have the numbers.

Refugees, Muslims and immigrants aren't over-represented in the rape statistics. It's slightly a bit higher. But that can be explained by the fact that slightly higher rape statistics correlates with poverty. It's a class and status thing. So if we adjust for that then there's no difference. It's still just slightly higher. There's no rape epidemic. The number of reported rapes hasn't gone up since we got the flood of refugees. Nothing happened. We got some areas where rapes went up temporarily. These were dutifully reported by the racist press, Daily Mail and such. But it also went down in other areas. Its called statistical variance. Over time we saw that there's no statistically significant difference. Which is statistics-talk for rapes not going up.

Yet, the increase in rapes among refugees is a myth that persists. So we need to ask ourselves why? Derec came up with the creative name "rapefugee". Could things like that be the culprit? Do you think that the image and association of Muslims, people with darker complexion, immigrants and refugees, as more likely to rape, might negatively impact their lives? How much do you think that negatively impacts their lives?

That is harm being done. It's hard to compare the collective harm directed against these thousands people with one raped woman.

It also has more bizarre effects. It leads to a polarised society. We get people who can read statistics on one hand, against people who can't on the other. When people are divided they become blind to transgressions of people on the same side.

An example. A couple of months ago there was a Swedish woman who got drunk at a "refugees welcome" party. She was "helped home" by a black guy. Outside her home she collapsed and past out. The black guy proceeded to rape her on the grass outside her home. This was recorded and neighbours ran out to apprehend the man. Police was called to the scene. The woman then woke up, didn't remember anything was told what had happened. She then denied it and started to defend the black man and calling the police and her neighbours racists for making such an accusation. In court the video of it surfaced.

This is what polarisation leads to. Filtered reality, on all sides, and idiocy. Just fucking stop spreading nonsense and lies. There are genuine problems with Islam. How about focusing on that instead?

You incorrectly attributed bilby's statement as mine. I did not say that.
 
So leftists are worse?
Insofar as they demand more mass migration from countries with incompatible cultures (like 97% support for Sharia Law) or want to prevent all deportations to Sharia-loving places like Afghanistan, even for serious criminals and Islamists, yes, they are worse.
image-1098370-galleryV9-dhlh-1098370.jpg
(Translation: "Right to stay for all!" and "No deportations to Afghanistan!")
Useful idiots, the lot of them!
 
Analysis of Government figures shows that there are more than one million additional homes above those required for households in the UK.

This "housing surplus" has nearly doubled from 800,000 spare homes in 1996 to 1.4million homes at any one time in 2014.

Perhaps it will be true if you repeat it another few dozen times? Or maybe you are just demonstrably wrong in the entire basis of almost every single post you have made on the topic, and should shut the fuck up until you have some actual facts to base your posts upon.

I know which option I think is most likely.

But they also have a housing shortage.

What's really going on is that the rules are so landlord-unfriendly that many people prefer to let property sit vacant than rent it out.
 
Back
Top Bottom