(untitled)

What does /r/ think of this(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST, Please elaborate in your opening post in future, Please state what the media you are linking to is, and a summary of it for those that can't view it, and please state your own thoughts about the media you linked. As per the rules page 4. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

surreal world we live in Weird how he could have smuggled those guns in New Zealand Also reading his manifesto is weird, almost makes me want to believe that he was CIA agent trying to start up a war between muslims and far right

Dude seems batsoykaf insane to me. On one hand it's funny how absurd it is given what he said, but also depressing given the situation. Seen some people cheer him on but seems like it's only to look edgy and cool. I haven't seen anyone that would actually rise up from the comfort and safety of their computers so far despite the dude calling these people out in his manifesto. What's even stranger is places seem divided on whether or not this was a false flag. Weird fuarrrking times

Being Australian I think he's a legend. Need more people like him willing to do what's needed to stop the mudskums

>>10879 Supposedly he got them legally (passing rigorous background and psych checks and testimony of those around him) >>10882 He seems largely uneducated (stating he never really went to school, got rich of crypto investing early on, then traveled the world a bit). He also used a lot of memes that made it seem like he was trying to be a brewing soykaf terrorist (he states that terrorizing the muslim people was his goal). The memes also make him look like trash, but it is curious to see if he is trying to use the memes as a means to detract from everything he said (i.e. using it as an excuse to not make it sound like a hate crime: "But i made all those remarks sarcastically, i even said that fortnite and spyro radicalized me, clearly that does not make logical sense to call this a hate crime") I think that from a tech point of view, he abused the system (streaming his murders on facebook live) which is a blow to the company that promises to stop hate and make the world a friendly online safe space with content moderation. He also initiated his attack by posting a threat on 8chan which may come to hurt the way people look at imageboard users.

>>10883 he should be put down like the degenerate scum he is, right before you.(Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks.)

I don't support what he did but I do not have much sympathy for the victims. I'm not sure what to make of the aftereffects because most white people are now apologizing en masse to the Muslims and bending over backwards to cater to them even more (something that Muslims never do for non-Muslims, and it makes me very upset when white people are blase and apathetic towards not only the daily attacks on fellow white people by Muslims, but also that they will be replaced by them, with nothing but tragic results), but at the same time, he predicted all of that. He seemed to know what he was doing to at least some extent, so I can't quite call him an idiot. Supposedly the Prime Minister just said that she wants MORE Muslims to flood into that country. The question is, why? They already make up 1.1 percent, which is way too high. Muslims are just invading everywhere, it is disgusting.

>>10887 >daily attacks source? In the US at least, stuff like this is just as common as mooslum terrorism. >>10887

>>10886 You're part of the problem, seeing a brave man take a stand and you want to punish him(You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.)

>>10889 >seeing a brave man take a stand and you want to punish him while you have a right to your opinion, I will politely disagree. His actions were neither brave, nor should they go without punishment. He did not act brave on behalf of others, he was a terrorist. In fact, he explains exactly how he hopes to inspire terror and make all muslims feel unsafe in his manifesto. Many people were calling him some sort of warrior for the white race, but in reality he was just a petty psychopath. Ethnocentrism creates problems because it makes people unable to interact productively. (In his case, he praised a white ethnostate, which is the same as those muslims who want to create a caliphate i.e. ISIS). Interaction between people of differing opinions is a fundamental necessity of human socialization. Without it, new advances in art, science, or technology would not be possible. To those who would call him a "warrior" I would say you are wrong, because a warrior serves the purpose described by sitting bull: >The warrior, for us, is one who sacrifices himself for the good of others. His task is to take care of the elderly, the defenseless, those who can not provide for themselves, and above all, the children, the future of humanity. As one may say, every terrorist is another mans freedom fighter, one must accept that he engaged in hostilities against people during a spiritual service, which is a deplorable action of itself, as it detracts from ones inherent rights (this means minding ones own business). Unfortunately I feel that people will try to spout memes at me for this post, and I don't care how brainwashed you have made yourself. You have the right to say, do, and believe what you want, but bear in mind that there are consequences. I feel that politeness never hurt anyone, and there is too much hate in the world. Unfortunately, one must be cognizant that there are those who subscribe to ignorant ideals that preach hate, and those people must be defended against. Those who are unwilling to use deadly force will always fall prey to those who are, but one should never resort to force as a means of enforcing opinion. Murdering people (especially in such a detestable fashion as with playing meme music) is no act of bravery, one could call it psychological warfare, but it is hypocritical for someone especially who claims to hold himself to a higher set of ideals. There are relatively good and bad people everywhere, take lainchan for example, as a community we are composed of people form all nations, religions, and walks of life, but we are all the same- anonymous lains who need to work together for the good of the community. In the same way, one should not judge other humans by their skin color, religion, or appearance alone. Predominantly, people have objections to hurting others, and while they may be selfish assholes , they are generally not malicious enough to physically hurt your being.

Can aussies even be called wignat? At some point you're just a real nigger, and to draw the line some where past aussie is a bit dishonest.

Plenty of things make me ashamed to be Australian but this has been a big one. Most of what I’ve thought about this past day has been about the poor people who lost their lives because of this. Nothing can excuse it - even if the conspiracy theories were true, or even had an iota of truth in them, nothing can possibly be said which would make this acceptable. It’s so bad and it’s made so many people incredibly sad. I say this also as an ex-Muslim who left the religion because I did not agree with it anymore - something which I think should be basically irrelevant because these people never did anything to deserve this, but something which I think still bears being mentioned. It’s a very dull silver lining but I’m glad the Bangledeshi test cricket team managed to avoid getting caught up in this blood bath. As a devoted lover of cricket, I don’t think I could bear the shame if one of my countrymen had murdered the international men’s representatives of some of our cricket loving brothers in the subcontinent. And now the third NZ v Bangladesh test of the series has been cancelled. This fuarrrking memeing fascist cunt has ruining so much.

>>10890 >Interaction between people of differing opinions is a fundamental necessity of human socialization. Without it, new advances in art, science, or technology would not be possible. I'm not particularly invested in this, but I feel like it might be worth pointing out that the muslim world has contributed next to zero to art/science/tech in the last couple centuries. (Not to neglect their previous top-tier work in mathematics). To me it is more of a culture war than a race war anyways. Arabs who practice the islamic faith but are integrated into western culture and ideals can contribute great things within those countries. Refugees and outsiders who hold different values and cultural ideals are likely to be incompatible. I doubt anyone with a sub-highschool education from a war-torn country is liable to produce substantial advances in science or tech without first making significant effort to integrate into the host country which, from the little I've seen/heard, is simply not happening. also european countries already have an abundance of candidates for positions in art/sci/tech; they need refugees as breeder stock for manual labor and to fill in the bottom of the socioeconomic pyramid because their reproductive rates plummeted >To those who would call him a "warrior" I would say you are wrong, because a warrior serves the purpose described by sitting bull: >The warrior, for us, is one who sacrifices himself for the good of others. His task is to take care of the elderly, the defenseless, those who can not provide for themselves, and above all, the children, the future of humanity. I'm not really a fan of what the guy did, but I'm pretty sure he would 110% self-describe as doing all of those things. In his mind he was sacrificing himself to bring what he saw as a rampaging race/culture war to the attention of the masses and to help ensure a future for his ideologies. Not that his ideas are good ones. But you can't deny his intent. sage because pol/10 thread

>>10885 Yeah it'll be interesting to see if his soykafposts have a far reaching effect online

I found it amusing. I've read that it is good in part because, as such things become increasingly more common, it will become harder and harder to deny this war-like state the world is currently in; I agree. Multiculturalism is a failure and it is clear to many. This is an unnatural state and violence is the result. I can have a pleasant conversation with someone in a different country and with wildly different beliefs over the Internet, because there's no real threat of physical violence. Human groups should stay to themselves, physically. I could continue going on, but it doesn't seem appropriate. As for whether this was faked or not, I don't have an opinion yet, as I've not been able to watch the entire video. Here is the first half. If anyone has the full video, I would like it to be shared.

>>10896 >I can have a pleasant conversation with someone in a different country and with wildly different beliefs over the Internet, because there's no real threat of physical violence. Human groups should stay to themselves, physically. Why does it have to be that way, if everyone thinks the same, they fall victim to groupthink and are easily taken advantage of? I like to present as a counterexample the trade industries and economies at international crossroads (like the Mediterranean) even if people talked soykaf about one another, it was good to exchange ideas and goods on even terms, because it benefited everyone. I found this paper on the subject that says that multiculturalism is a matter of individualism. >Perhaps surprisingly, however, the main opponents of the West are Westerners themselves, who attack rationalism, science, and legitimate authority. But at its core, true multiculturalism relies on loyalty to a particular group and insistence on its unique value. By nature, such groups place the authority of the collective ahead of the claims of the individual. How does group loyalty fit with the Western opponents’ hostility to authority? >It can’t, of course. Multiculturalism is not really multicultural, and in fact owes more to Western individualism than to non-Western traditional cultures. Multiculturalists, ignoring facts about cultures in which they claim membership, cannot conceive of a culture that does not celebrate the rights of the imperial individual, yet they attack individualism. loyalty and group mentality is not a bad thing, but it also does not need to be isolationist. Multiculturalism as an appreciation of what makes one special while admitting there are differences to others that are equally as important (in terms of a capitalist economy, this can be a difference in goods or services uniquely produced by one people). Unfortunately, tech has created isolationists rather than multiculturalists, simply by the nature of preaching pride, but filtering any foreign ideas, and the lack of IRL interaction means there is not metric to see others as human.

After reading up on this, I don't know how anyone could claim the modern world is anything but a stupid joke that everyone is forced to be a part of.

>>10897 >Unfortunately, tech has created isolationists Very true, lots of places online are more like an echo chamber than a place to discuss a topic. It's unfortunate since rather than having your ideas discussed, tested and challenged it's simply easier to ignore any criticism. To me this comes off as insecure more than anything else, which is a shame because tech gives us such an opportunity

>>10896 As an update, I found a copy here: https://darkweb.tokyo/ It's 84 megabytes and /f/ is gone so I can't upload it here. >>10897 >Why does it have to be that way, if everyone thinks the same, they fall victim to groupthink and are easily taken advantage of? Not everyone in a large group thinks the same. Not all muslims, jews, whites, africans, or any other large group. There are certain memetic ideas that are common, but it's hard to argue that a group composed of millions will entirely fall to groupthink. I think differently than my neighbors and family and it's really not hard. >I like to present as a counterexample the trade industries and economies at international crossroads (like the Mediterranean) even if people talked soykaf about one another, it was good to exchange ideas and goods on even terms, because it benefited everyone. Sure, but violence does break out among certain groups at times. You can argue this is just the cost of doing business, though, and it's not as if people don't also fight amongst themselves. >I found this paper on the subject that says that multiculturalism is a matter of individualism. I agree with that idea, but that's because I believe multiculturalism is designed to breakdown groups and that results in increasing isolation and so also individualism. >Perhaps surprisingly, however, the main opponents of the West are Westerners themselves, who attack rationalism, science, and legitimate authority. But at its core, true multiculturalism relies on loyalty to a particular group and insistence on its unique value. By nature, such groups place the authority of the collective ahead of the claims of the individual. How does group loyalty fit with the Western opponents’ hostility to authority? I think people who reject science and other things we can reasonably know to be true in some way, even if not perfectly, are crazed. >It can’t, of course. Multiculturalism is not really multicultural, and in fact owes more to Western individualism than to non-Western traditional cultures. Multiculturalists, ignoring facts about cultures in which they claim membership, cannot conceive of a culture that does not celebrate the rights of the imperial individual, yet they attack individualism. Sure. This is like how people complain about "cultural appropriation" using phones, computers, while wearing clothes made in factories, and taking medicine created by the West when they get sick. >loyalty and group mentality is not a bad thing, but it also does not need to be isolationist. Multiculturalism as an appreciation of what makes one special while admitting there are differences to others that are equally as important (in terms of a capitalist economy, this can be a difference in goods or services uniquely produced by one people). I'd rather just use the Internet for other groups. It's not fun to go to a restaraunt in your country and see so many people unlike you. >Unfortunately, tech has created isolationists rather than multiculturalists, simply by the nature of preaching pride, but filtering any foreign ideas, and the lack of IRL interaction means there is not metric to see others as human. Sure. I don't really have much to comment, because I don't want to have a long discussion. I just posted again to share the video.

>>10900 It has been this way forever. Humanity is one big joke. Just like in Camus' "The Stranger" - you have killed an arab, but you are judged because you had not cried on your mothers funeral. It's just a big, wild ride.

>>10890 >>10905 another line from camus "there is only the benign indifference of the universe"(the outsider).which to me sums up all of mans machinations and futility.

>>10897 I think you are really missing the point though, what does this have to do with this aussie shooter? He travelled the world extensively learning and interacting with different cultures across the globe and posted pictures of his travels. He does not fit the anti-multicultural stereotype you are trying to box him into. He quite literally tried to explore all of the various cultures in an earnest effort and only afterwards came to these conclusions.

>>10932 It would be more accurate to say he was radicalised by extremist elements of the countries he visited. And your use of the terms "literally" "earnest" and "conclusions" suggest you tacitly support his actions.

We live in the dumbest possible timeline and fascism is going to come back in the form of people who unironically reference memes in meatspace.

What I find interesting is how NZ government and media is reacting to it. They try to stop the spread of his videos and manifestos. NZ government even jailed few people for spreading his videos and tried gathering IPs and emails of people who spread it on website called kiwifarms (no relations to kiwi country). Media has been so far as to demonize everyone wanting to watch the video and got some psychologist "experts" and puppets telling us that we shouldn't watch the video. Weird. Funny how it's 21st century so their censorship attempts die in vain. Lmao.

>>10938 You can empathise with perspectives without holding them, agreeing with them, or supporting them in any way. The understanding that we have of the world is all about understanding other peoples frame of reference as best we can and empathising with everyone around us. We are all in this together. If you have this skill, it becomes easier to talk to people who hold extreme views and talk them back to reality. I personally think the reason why people like shooter do dumb soykaf like this is because they don't have people they can talk to that actually understand them. This is the function that therapy has for many people, but extremists can't go to normal channels like therapy often. Anyway, I don't think it is helpful to other anyone just because they are a horrible person, everyone is in this world together.

>>10932 i'd like to disagree... many anti-multicultural folks travel... heck, there are anti-immigration and racist white people living in japan (as.. guess what, immigrant.) - many are against interracial relationships and yet, they fetishise japanese women to such extent they marry them even though it should be against their politics... just because someone meets other cultures doesn't mean they don't necessarily have prejudice. (and that goes for philosophies and policies too)

He is a puppet and the incident was a false flag. Somebody in the NZ government knew he was trouble but wanted him to go through with it to create a backlash against NZ gun owners, due process, and online political speech. I feel bad for the decent New Zealanders who are getting targeted for the rampage of some Australian puppet. I would welcome freedom-loving New Zealanders into the United States. Kiwi refugees welcome! The memes made about it are funny though.

>>10963 why would one go to usa when seeking freedom?

>>10887 >>10888 >daily attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_March_2019 Islam-associated attacks appear to happen roughly 2-3 times a day, but attacks specifically against western whites appear to be more in the range of 3+ times a month (at least for March). Just going to to leave his manifesto here. I read it yesterday and while I don't agree with him on some things, he does present an interesting socioeconomic explanation of mass migration to Europe. Also annoyed at the media portrayal of him as yet another ultra-racist white-supremacist muslim-hating shooter.

>>10967 What the... Did you read what you posted? What is the interesting socioeconomic explanation of mass migration there? How is he not a yet another ultra-racist white-supremacist muslim-hating shooter? What do you think does it mean when I say that I don't hate you but I want you to stay away from me and that I just hate everyone who chooses to associate with you? It just means I don't just hate you but I'm also an asshole about it. >blood traitors to their own race ... This guy..

>>10968 You don’t believe in race traitors? What do you think an Uncle Tom is?

>>10965 The United States despite its flaws and shortcomings has stronger political expression freedoms than other countries where you get arrested because of "hate speech." It also tends not to crackdown on law-abiding gun owners in most states because of some psycho foreigner so the NZ farmers who want to be able to have functioning weapons to fight off mulitple assailants and wild animals can do so better here. Also, we need more active voters in our country to remove politicians who support "red flag laws" and who want to destroy due process with Soviet-style crackdowns on dissent which include treating anyone who has a different perspective of life as mentally ill. Kiwi refugees would make great US citizens. Oh and I included another meme for fun.

>>10968 >What is the interesting socioeconomic explanation of mass migration there? If you read through the actual manifesto, he argues that mass importation of refugees is being backed primarily by corporate interests to maintain a readily available source of cheap pseudo-slave labor. Previously I'd only seen arguments based on humanitarian ideals ala "they are people too" which I found unconvincing or political/racial politics "campaign to kill the white race" which seemed far too tinfoil hat. I'd seen arguments that Europe needed migrants to help stabilize against collapsing birthrates, but I couldn't understand why they would take refugees instead of literally ANYONE else with better education and a more similar cultural background. Maybe I'm just dimwitted, but to me the economics argument makes a lot more sense and had not occurred to me prior. >How is he not a yet another ultra-racist white-supremacist muslim-hating shooter? >White supremacy or white supremacism is the racist belief that white people are superior to people of other races and therefore should be dominant over them. White supremacy has roots in scientific racism, and it often relies on pseudoscientific arguments. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy I don't see him making any claims of this sort. He might not be a paragon of virtue and kindness but I don't see him saying any of the traditional white-supremacist statements ie: > Black people are lesser because X > Muslims are inferior to white people because Y > White people are the best because Z He certainly thinks his brand of white-european-facism is the best thing since sliced bread, but I don't think that is the same thing as being a white supremacist. >ultra-racist I'll have to backpedal on this one. When I hear ultra-racist I imagine someone who thinks along the lines of a traditional KKK member: > all brown people are dirty shack men who rape lots > every culture that is not mine is a dumpster fire that should be nuked into the stone age > we should exterminate all brown people everywhere In his manifesto he self-admits to the attack being racially motivated, but only in the loosely [pseudo?]-scientific way. I'd attribute differences in racial fertility rates more to differences in education/socioeconomic status than intrinsic biological differences, but that's splitting hairs. Perhaps we have different ideas of racism lain. To me his statements don't seem to meet this definition: >The ideology underlying racism often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities, as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior. I'd think of him as attempting to engage in a culture war much more so than a race war.

>>10971 >Maybe I'm just dimwitted, but to me the economics argument makes a lot more sense and had not occurred to me prior. Well soz but yes you are dimwitted it is not a new argument by any means. Imagine the dude had just come to this site to post his blog, nobody would've given a soykaf. The only reason anyone cares is because he made himself a celebrity through mass murder. I get the rest of your arguments but they're beyond the point you were making in your previous post saying >Also annoyed at the media portrayal of him as yet another ultra-racist white-supremacist muslim-hating shooter. If you had continued this and said >Also annoyed at the media portrayal of him as yet another ultra-racist white-supremacist muslim-hating shooter when in fact I think he is something I have taken to call 'white-european-fascism' and he doesn't hate muslims but rather just Islamic culture, [and these other minor technical differences] At which point everyone would've noted that you really are a dimwit if you think mass media is going to get deeply into your detailed taxonomy of neofascism.

>>10967 the great replacement? really? now i can't take you seriously. >>10970 well, i support gun control. i am also leftie... so i would rather keep my healthcare and no fear of school shootings over that.

>>10971 fascism? i see it as a brand of nazism. but then, i don't really feel like reading up on some racist's philosophy.

if you're a brown person or any race that falls in the cross-hairs of being 'responsible' for 'the great replacement', do yourself a favor and buy a gun

>>10968 >How is he not a yet another ultra-racist white-supremacist muslim-hating shooter? >white-supremacist muslim-hating They're mutually exclusive. One of the most central beliefs of people on the far Right is that Muslim immigration is only a symptom and Jews are the "disease" and as you head towards the extreme Right you see more solidarity with Muslims as allies against the Jewish menace. Going back to the 1940s, the actual Nazis had strong ties with Arab nations in the middle east until the old colonial powers rolled into town and bitch slapped them all back into line. The truth is the New Zealand shooter wasn't "ultra-extremist-radical" anything. He was a normal guy, vaguely nationalist, and fed up with Muslim shenanigans. I'm not trying to defend what he did but you have to admit that Muslims, as an abstract group, have generated a HUGE amount of bad faith across the globe at this point. >What do you think does it mean when I say that I don't hate you but I want you to stay away from me White nationalists want a world where asian people do their thing in asian countries, white people do their thing in white countries, brown people do their thing in brown countries and we call leave each other the fuarrrk alone. There's no hate involved. Yes it's dumb but it's arguably a better recipe for world peace and prosperity than open the borders and let everyone do what they want.

>>10985 Muslim shenanigans... The "bad faith" around my parts seem to come from the failure to disconnect extremism from those who're simply attempting to live their lives and practice their religion, which alone causes a ton of scrutiny. If I treated white, christian people the same way white extremists and those with "bad faith" treat muslim people for simply being the same race as extremists, my ears would be full of "reverse racism." If I continued to trivialize the lives of white, christian people by bringing up various extremists' actions towards other white people or people of color, I'd be called a racist for it. Why should this be any different for muslim people? Average NZ muslims have been minding their business for a decade now, why should anyone give into what is media-induced panic instead of addressing that the same extremism that white extremists practice is what accelerates the bad faith towards average muslims? > He was a normal guy You aren't a "normal guy" if your intent is to kill, that's called being a murderer.

>>10986 >The "bad faith" around my parts seem to come from the failure to disconnect extremism from those who're simply attempting to live their lives The hoards of "refugees" currently raping Europe are not extremists. They are just young men with a holy book that lets them treat women as sex objects. >Why should this be any different for muslim people? The difference is that Muslims are perceived to be "invading" white countries (that is, countries which have been built up and maintained by white people for generations). From that perspective Muslims are guests but they don't act like it. That's why your analogy doesn't really work, you're saying white people in white countries are occasionally mean to Muslims boo-hoo. Have you ever looked at how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim countries? >why should anyone give into what is media-induced panic It always gets me how both sides are utterly convinced the media is against them. In Europe at least I think a lot of the animosity is being fueled by the media trying so hard to cover up the bad things "refugees" have been doing. >instead of addressing that the same extremism that white extremists practice is what accelerates the bad faith towards average muslims? Absolutely disagree. Muslims behaving badly is what generates bad faith against Muslims. Don't try to blame it on Evil White Men just being cunts for no reason.

>>10985 basically there is no intellectual diversity on the right. It's all the same base conspiracy about jews

>>10987 You have a cult like mentality. Muslims are not a "problem" but you are being lied to and you need to leave your online echo chambers.

>>10986 >You aren't a "normal guy" if your intent is to kill, that's called being a murderer. You know what I mean. Politically he was relatively normal. Someone who regards Muslims as the enemy and doesn't believe there is a global Jewish conspiracy to genocide the white race as revenge for the holocaust that never happened; is nowhere on the traditional right-wing/Nazi spectrum.

>>10990 He was a right wing extremist. You're just confirming my suspicion that any one to the right of neoliberals is detached from reality. The holocaust happened. There is no jewish conspiracy. There is no great replacement. The guy who shot up new zealand was a mind poisoned racist right winger. Get the fuarrrk over it, pick yourself up, admit you were wrong.

>>10987 > They are just young men with a holy book that lets them treat women as sex objects That's quite an extreme viewpoint amongst many western muslims, a viewpoint that some white men also quietly share here in America. But some of us know better than to not think all white men share those same thoughts. Immigration comes with the possibility of wrong doing and crime but I don't think that's enough to be afraid of an entire race of people, or else, you know, the analogy comes back, regardless of who's host and who's guest: why shouldn't I be afraid of white people in that case? To add onto that... > you're saying white people in white countries are occasionally mean to Muslims boo-hoo. Have you ever looked at how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim countries? White man being treated like trash in brown man country Brown man being treated like trash in white man country It is the same. I'll say that your concern for how 'muslims should act' seems as if you've never even settled with the factor that you might be living in a 'free country'. With that responsibility comes crime and profiles who want to commit that for their own joy. > It always gets me how both sides are utterly convinced the media is against them Let's also remember that what we're discussing on right now is _also_ media. People like to lie to themselves about the platform they swallow information on, surrogating big media for a social media is still media. > Muslims behaving badly is what generates bad faith against Muslims. Don't try to blame it on Evil White Men just being cunts for no reason. "No reason" > White nationalists want a world where asian people do their thing in asian countries, white people do their thing in white countries, brown people do their thing in brown countries and we call leave each other the fuarrrk alone This sounds like a reason to be a total cunt and kill people, yeah? Even then, I still refuse to blame other white people for this. So why Muslims?

>>10992 >That's quite an extreme viewpoint amongst many western muslims, a viewpoint that some white men also quietly share here in America. But some of us know better than to not think all white men share those same thoughts. It's not the same because women=objects is baked into the religion itself. White men who treat women as objects are just pigs. Muslim men who treat women as objects are following god's will. So actually it's rather irrational for you to assume Muslims follow western values towards women over their holy text. >Immigration comes with the possibility of wrong doing and crime but I don't think that's enough to be afraid of an entire race of people This is fair but the fact still remains that the vast majority of the immigrates are Muslim so that's how other people are going to identify them when they do bad things. And they do do bad things. >White man being treated like trash in brown man country >Brown man being treated like trash in white man country >It is the same. My point was more things like, just existing as a Christian is against the law in some Muslim countries. Even though some people are mean to Muslims in Europe they are still 100% equal before the law and more than equal in media propaganda. If you think it's comparable then you need a little more perspective. I don't mean to be personal but it sounds like everything you know about Muslims comes from leftist propaganda. >"No reason" What's your point?

He was deranged. What trouble have muslims caused to Oceania? He has no reason whatsoever to feel the hatred he feels towards muslims and yet, by being weak minded, he took 4chan/8chan too seriously.

>>10993 > It's not the same because women=objects is baked into the religion itself. White men who treat women as objects are just pigs. Muslim men who treat women as objects are following god's will. So actually it's rather irrational for you to assume Muslims follow western values towards women over their holy text. I think some perspective I would put down here is that people who follow the 'holy text' are at best selective about what their holy text states, the same way general christians often denounce older scripture that (vaguely) denounces various 'vices' (that ultimately, no one cares for, or is just dehumanizing, i.e "treat women like objects") It's not a very irrational thing, especially after 9/11. 9/11 may have been the western muslim's most redefining point in denouncing not only terrorism, but also causing a younger generation to practice their religion for the sake of productivity the same way christians do, yet it's still not 'enough' > This is fair but the fact still remains that the vast majority of the immigrates are Muslim When the Middle East is so close to Europe and is consistently in violent conflict either because of their own doing, or America's warmongering, I would frankly expect most of the migrating demographic to come from that area, only because they don't want to die, and so comes the wrong doing from a part of that demographic who simply loves to reap the benefits of being somewhere they can commit crime. No one seems to point this out, especially in recent news where democrats and cons in our country continue to grill Palestinian support as 'anti-semitism' when it's simply just anti-warmongering and anti-war funding. > just existing as a Christian is against the law in some Muslim countries. Even though some people are mean to Muslims in Europe they are still 100% equal before the law and more than equal in media propaganda See, but as displayed by the NZ shooter, you can _still die_ in the west just for being muslim because of propaganda that suggests that "young men are just following their holy text" and they have zero clue what they're. Pigs know exactly what they're doing isn't holy, there is no science behind this, the same way the shooter knew what he was doing. I know one is 'lawfully looked down at' which also includes death, but death is death, and 40 people died just for being muslim. Most young men here just want to live, ofc you've got slime bags but you know what I'm going to say about that. I can't say much for Europe but even then I have my hopes and doubts for those who're coming right off the boat. > I don't mean to be personal but it sounds like everything you know about Muslims comes from leftist propaganda. It may be a weird way to open this sentence, but I'm black, and I am simply tired of statements being made about the people I live by, I am friends with, I work with, I function with, either for political clout, or to scaremonger an unsure audience into thinking that Mohammed in New York is going to rape your mom if you and her are in an elevator alone. The same people who make these statements are also not afraid to move the goalpost onto people like me. I will say that I do my best to acknowledge propaganda and it gets blatant, but the statements I've been making are only retrospective. You can't expect me to not have a bias against extremists who live to make statements that group an entire race of people as 'clueless rapists' who're simply following a 'holy text', the moment you let them have that, they'll move on to the next. That's what extremism has done forever, regardless of race.

>>10995 correction > See, but as displayed by the NZ shooter, you can _still die_ in the west just for being muslim because of propaganda that suggests that "young men are just following their holy text" and they have zero clue what they're doing.

>>10993 >>10995 Just to add on to > just existing as a Christian is against the law in some Muslim countries Sorry to be crude, but the tit-for-tat soykaf is exhausting and frankly it gets nowhere when settling on the factor that there should be a political effort to cut either vice is more productive than > If Muslims can kill Christians in the Middle East, why can't Christians kill Muslims in the West?

>>10991 Not either of you but lain please read before you post. >Someone who regards Muslims as the enemy and doesn't believe there is a global Jewish conspiracy to genocide the white race as revenge for the holocaust that never happened; is nowhere on the traditional right-wing/Nazi spectrum. >and doesn't believe there is a global Jewish conspiracy to genocide the white race as revenge for the holocaust that never happened >doesn't believe He just explicitly stated that the shooter DOES NOT deny the holocaust and DOES NOT spew anti-jew conspiracy soykaf. As for the great replacement, he attributes it to simple economics and declining birthrates (refugees = cheap labor to replacing aging educated EU population), not to a globalist jew conspiracy. Which is reasonable enough imo.

>>10998 the unreasonable part, and the part that is relevant, is that he thought the "great replacement" was bad, and not just that it was bad, that they should be gunned down, and not just that they should be gunned down, but that he was the guy to do it. Dude is off his fuarrrkin rocker, deserves no more sympathy than the hardest meanest psychopath gangster.

>>10995 >I think some perspective I would put down here is that people who follow the 'holy text' are at best selective about what their holy text states, Muslims are pretty consistent and uncompromising on the position of women though. Just look at how they dress. >When the Middle East is so close to Europe and is consistently in violent conflict either because of their own doing, or America's warmongering, I would frankly expect most of the migrating demographic to come from that area, only because they don't want to die, and so comes the wrong doing from a part of that demographic who simply loves to reap the benefits of being somewhere they can commit crime. No one seems to point this out, especially in recent news where democrats and cons in our country continue to grill Palestinian support as 'anti-semitism' when it's simply just anti-warmongering and anti-war funding. This is not wrong. Do you see how somebody can go from here to "Jews are the real enemy and Muslims are victims just like us Hitler did nothing wrong, gas the Jews"? Because that's what the far-right actually believe. They don't shoot up mosques. >See, but as displayed by the NZ shooter, you can _still die_ in the west just for being muslim because of propaganda that suggests that "young men are just following their holy text" and they have zero clue what they're. I don't think it's fair to call this propaganda. It is a fact that *many* Muslims have entered Europe in the last few years. It is a fact that a number of them have committed crimes, some of which are not actually crimes where they come from because they have a radically different culture. Is it not reasonable for a white person who seems to think "actually things would be better if the Muslims went away, lets do something to show that they are not welcome"? What I'm pushing back against here is this idea that he must be some kind of brainwashed ultra-racist white supremacist. Why can't a normal person come to this conclusion alone? Yes, actually going out and killing people makes him not normal from a mental health perspective. But this idea that anyone who is not in favor of mass Muslim immigration has to be some kind of extremist is not good. Because more people are going to get pissed off about immigration and if you saying the only way to counter mass immigration is to be a Nazi then you are going to end up with a lot of new Nazis in the near future. >It may be a weird way to open this sentence, That's fine, I'm not attacking you personally. My point is I grew up on a paki estate in England so I know what it's like to live in a majority Muslim community. As a kid I used to run to the shops alone to buy milk because my mother would get harassed on the street for not covering her hair. I get how your situation and life experiences are shaping your position but if there are people who have had more contact with Muslims than you, you should listen to them too. >You can't expect me to not have a bias against extremists who live to make statements that group an entire race of people as 'clueless rapists' who're simply following a 'holy text', the moment you let them have that, they'll move on to the next. I don't think that's a fair summery of what I said. It's not that they're clueless it's just what they are used to in their religion and culture is not acceptable here in Europe but nobody tells them that when they get off the boat so a lot of misunderstandings happen. And for white people who are directly affected by these misunderstandings is it really unreasonable for them to say "go away and leave us alone"?

>>11000 >the unreasonable part, and the part that is relevant, is that he thought the "great replacement" was bad I think this comes down to a difference of opinion, Lain. Personally, I don't think it is bad for someone to take pride in their culture/people and to want it to continue existing for the foreseeable future. I personally worry about aspects of my own personal "culture" dying out in the near future due to changing ethnic/political/socioeconomic factors. I would go so far as to say I think the death of any culture/people/way of life is a sad thing, even for cannibalistic tribes or what have you. Another way to think of it, we can agree that it was very bad when western colonizers eradicated native american culture in America, yes? By extension, I would argue that the extensive use of missionaries to non-violently spread Judeo-Christian faith to south america was a bad thing, as it destroyed their local cultures. You could certainly paint the gradual death of traditional european cultures along the same lines, a gentle non-violent blending of cultures and faiths that eventually homogenizes to the outsider culture. >that they should be gunned down, and not just that they should be gunned down, but that he was the guy to do it That part I don't really agree with, although you can kind of rationalize his approach when you consider that he was completely powerless within the normal democratic process. His views on migration were actively against the status quo in humanities/politics/media, so one of the only ways he could possibly enact some fragment of his ideology was through physical violence. Again, not saying I agree with it, but it falls within pretty standard lines of reasoning for people who feel trapped/powerless/desperate/isolated ala school shooters.

>>10877 I don't see the point at all to the attacks. All they've done is make things harder on his groups "cause" and possibly help push for further gun legislation in NZ, even if his guns were smuggled that doesn't matter to legislators. If this were an attack on the individuals that have been causing problems like rape gangs and other criminals living in immigrant communities, I could see the justification, but all I see are supporters treating this as some kind of revenge attack for every act of terrorism in the west despite the fact those same terrorist groups have no issue killing Muslims in their own country that are unaffiliated with them. There's no revenge here. Just a delusional Australian ruining things for New Zealand again.

>>11002 >By extension, I would argue that the extensive use of missionaries to non-violently spread Judeo-Christian faith to south america was a bad thing, Only if you assume all cultures are equal but they are evidently not. Missionaries spread medicine and technology and diplomacy where they went. They made the world a better place by sharing their culture. Sure you can say it is the right of native peoples to reject those things if they want to but they would be fools. >You could certainly paint the gradual death of traditional european cultures along the same lines, The problem is Europe is not some cannibal tribe in the amazon, it's among the most advanced civilizations in the world and replacing those people with 3rd world savages is a net loss for humanity from a purely rational utilitarian perspective. It's not just a case of every culture is precious.

>>11003 >the point If you skim his manifesto he outlines his reasoning. Basic idea is to accelerate. He argues that NZ is already a lost cause in terms of gun control laws/political dialogue if things continue following status quo, and that the only hope for a revival of his ideology in the public sphere is by accelerating the decline of society. An appropriate analogy would be: Current Society : slowly raising the temperature on a pot of water full of crabs, they eventually cook to death w/o resistance Accelerated: Hurl the crabs into a pot of boiling water after slapping them with ice cubes, hope the resultant spasms are enough to save them >>11004 >The problem is Europe is not some cannibal tribe in the amazon, it's among the most advanced civilizations in the world and replacing those people with 3rd world savages is a net loss for humanity from a purely rational utilitarian perspective. It's not just a case of every culture is precious. Wait lain I think we are arguing for the same thing. I was trying to argue that everyone has a right to want their culture to survive and prosper, including European white men. IE: the great replacement is bad You seem to also be arguing that european culture should be preserved, although from a stance of cultures being unequal. I agree that generally speaking europe > middle eastern culture, but I don't think we need that as a given to argue that european culture deserves to be preserved. I think it is easier to argue that all cultures deserve to be preserved within their own territories than to argue that europe is special and thus should be preserved over other cultures, but it is just a matter of taste.

>>11006 > to argue that europe is special and thus should be preserved over other cultures This was bad wording on my part, I don't mean to be too specific about who is involved. Just generally, the literal definition of a refugee/migrant is somebody who has fuarrrked up their own country so badly that they prefer to live somewhere else. That alone makes your values and culture inferior to that of the countries you are smuggling your way into. It's just insanity to me that we allow people from the Middle East and Africa to flood into Europe and then allow them to continue doing the things that make their homelands unlivable soykafholes. I'm not against helping refugees but if they're in our house they need to play by our rules.

What I see a lot of people ITT arguing is not the existence of "great replacement" but whether or not this thing is good. I think we can all agree that Europe and US have birthrates lower than replacement rate (ie. less than 2.1 babies per male/female) and that this thing is in fact happening and that politics in those countries found a temporary solution to import poor cheap labor from 3rd world countries to replace their projected economic growths and keep their population numbers stable, this isn't debatable. What I think is the problem with discussion ITT is the actual debate going into the direction of whether or not this should happen. We all have our own opinions and whether or not this culture/population replacement in west is actually good. Some people might call it long awaited justice for crimes long past. Some people might call it unjust due to achievements of this western culture, and that this isn't a long term sustainable goal. What I think is that this discussion is purely politicized opinions that lead us no discernible solutions but radicalization of both sides and everyone thinking their opinion is right. What I would propose is to shift this discussion towards something more practical and understandable in nature. Namely 2 most important questions that every analytical mind should have in their heads during any topic. >"Why is it happening?" >"How is it happening?" On the first question, we can go into details. Is it happening deliberately with intention of lowering EU & US populations birthrates and destroying their cultures and populations? What are some clear historical situations that made this current situation come to be? Who are people actively advocating for this and why? What do they say what are their "justifications" or intentions behind it? On second question we are getting just clear and main numbers that give us clearer picture of the situation. I think these 2 questions will get us closer to some kind of resolution, on both sides, rather than just discussing opinions.

>>10896 >>10877 >>10904 I compressed and converted [mp4->webm] my copy via ffmpeg (probably did a soykaf job of it) [spoiler][/spoiler] for uploading here.

>the lack of basic empathy in this thread jesus, learn to switch it on, it's not hard.

>>11019 Holy soykaf this is too insane for me to watch.

>>11017 >I think these 2 questions will get us closer to some kind of resolution, on both sides, rather than just discussing opinions. Part of it is just a simple bug in democracy. One person == one vote. Lefty politicians across the world are exploiting this bug by importing migrants from poorer countries in exchange for votes. But if the migrants are bringing negative value to society AND disabling democratic ways of changing the status quo then the inevitable result is nationalist violence.

>>10987 >The hoards of "refugees" currently raping Europe are not extremists. okay, first. i am curious, are you from europe or is that something you've heard in media? also, no. stop this BS. >The difference is that Muslims are perceived to be "invading" white countries (that is, countries which have been built up and maintained by white people for generations). *looks at my history textbook in the corner* rrriiiiiiight. white people have nver come to a different country and treated citizens terribly. >Absolutely disagree. Muslims behaving badly is what generates bad faith against Muslims. Don't try to blame it on Evil White Men just being cunts for no reason. but it is about evil white cunts... > White nationalists want a world where asian people do their thing in asian countries, white people do their thing in white countries, brown people do their thing in brown countries and we call leave each other the fuarrrk alone repeat that to yourself the next time you download weeb porn. >>10993 oh come on... christianity is full of misogyny and racism... it also condones rape in general. >My point was more things like, just existing as a Christian is against the law in some Muslim countries. Even though some people are mean to Muslims in Europe they are still 100% equal before the law and more than equal in media propaganda. If you think it's comparable then you need a little more perspective. I don't mean to be personal but it sounds like everything you know about Muslims comes from leftist propaganda. sure. but what does that have to do with arseholes mistreating muslims in other countries? >>11001 >Muslims are pretty consistent and uncompromising on the position of women though. Just look at how they dress. come on, you can do better... a) don't tell other people how to dress b) not all women wear burqa or hijab c) many people don't share that opinion... >It is a fact that *many* Muslims have entered Europe in the last few years. for a good reason. and guess who shares the blame for that reason even coming up? >It is a fact that a number of them have committed crimes, some of which are not actually crimes where they come from because they have a radically different culture. unless when it's far right propaganda and the crimes didn't happen or are grossly misrepresented >Is it not reasonable for a white person who seems to think "actually things would be better if the Muslims went away, lets do something to show that they are not welcome"? it is unreasonable to a) think that b) kill people for that >>11002 the difference is we welcome foreigners, they didn't come here with a sword and smallpox

>>11004 except you can share all of that without pushing your culture down their throats >"3rd world savages" you can't be serious >>11006 > "I agree that generally speaking europe > middle eastern culture" source? also let's stop this white replacement nonsense already, please... >>11016 except that's not what happened >>11017 > Europe and US have birthrates lower than replacement rate (ie. less than 2.1 babies per male/female) my country is still above that, thank you very much. and i still think it's okay for other people come and live here. because guess what, we are a free country. >>11027 and let me guess, it's all Hillary's doing

>>11036 >my country is still above that, thank you very much. and i still think it's okay for other people come and live here. because guess what, we are a free country. Look, there is a reason why you ignored the rest of my post and hooked onto one thing that you think I said was incorrect. That is why you use the passive aggressive "thank you very much". Surely you must agree to the point that immigrants (both legal and illegal) are more laborious and that it is a political and economic tool for increased labor to just import immigrants from cheaper countries. EU tried to make this shift to import from cheaper 2nd world slavic eastern european countries into the western ones to increase productivity but their goals failed. Whatever this "it's a free country" platitude means, you can't dispute the fact that politicians use and ABUSE immigrants as a economic tool for cheap labor, no? And hey, if immigrants want to come into our countries seeking for better life I have nothing against that, but we need to look at the situation from both angles, including the politicians and elite multimillionaire corporate interests sides also. Now, one of the things is the birthrate argument, which is also closely connected to economy, but still. By the way, what country are you from? >and i still think it's okay for other people come and live here Are you trying to imply I think otherwise? You have a really insidious way of speaking with others man, take a chill pill.

>>11037 >you can't dispute the fact that politicians use and ABUSE immigrants as a economic tool for cheap labor, no? and your reaction to that is that we should stop allowing migrants in? Why not just force them to start paying decent wages to immigrants?

>>11037 >Are you trying to imply I think otherwise? i am not implying anything >Look, there is a reason why you ignored the rest of my post yes. it sounded like pseudo-intellectual bs. (no offense heh) but i might have been aggravated by some posters and their borderline racist ideas >>11039 heh, i was about to write that and then autoupdate happened and i noticed your post

>>11037 btw, i seriously love that pic.. that makes me smile every time i see it

>>11039 >and your reaction to that is that we should stop allowing migrants in? When did I say that? >Why not just force them to start paying decent wages to immigrants? Hypotheticals aren't my cup of tea, sorry. I can't postulate what would be drawbacks to such situation and give you explanation to why not do it. >>11040 >yes. it sounded like pseudo-intellectual bs. (no offense heh) Again with passive aggressive insidious talk. If you want to say that it's pseudo intellectual to try and get concrete facts on hypothetical opinionated poppycock discussion ITT be my guest, but don't be this "no offense" and then adding "heh" to the end of it. It just reflects on you poorly and in my opinion is really childish way of talking, to anyone let alone an anonymous stranger over the internet. >but i might have been aggravated by some posters and their borderline racist ideas Well, however aggravating and infuriating these polirizing discussions often are I like to get to those 3 core tenets of Falun Gong: Truthfulness, Empathy, Forbearance As long as we talk truthfully about facts, as long as we see each other as people instead of some kind of objects, as long as we tolerate others in hopes of coming to some kind of resolution and better tomorrow then we can hold these discussions without getting angry or hostile. >>11042 Thank you, I like posting weird/funny pics to lighten up the mood a little bit.

>>11043 >When did I say that? I don't know, this is an anonymous imageboard. However you're pretty clearly trying to frame immigration or "the great replacement" as some kind of international corporate scheme that must be stopped, it's like asking leading questions. Not only that, but consider the context: you're asking us to seriously consider the merits of a terrorist's ideology. In another context I might believe that you're not trying to push anything, but here it's hard to see what you're writing as anything but insidious.

>>11043 i think the problem is that you decided to read all my posts as hostile from then on. it did sound pseudo-intellectual. mostly, because your tone sounded patronising. i am sorry if that offended you, that was my first impression. on the other hand, i don't believe in first impressions and i am ready to change my opinion (i already forgot about it, really) >It just reflects on you poorly *sigh* doublestandards then... >let alone an anonymous stranger over the internet. the problem with (pseudo)anonymity on the internet is that it's kinda impersonal and detaches you from the fact there's a human on the other side. on the other hand, this is definitely *a way* to talk to random people online. i am sorry if you feel like my way of speaking is childish, i won't do anything about it. >Hypotheticals aren't my cup of tea, sorry. well that's too late in this thread, don't you think? >>11044 honestly i am not sure if those are the same person (one of the disadvantages of imageboards, am i right?), but i do agree it sounded a bit... charged against immigrants.

>>11035 >are you from europe Yes. > also, no. stop this BS. What a solid argument. >rrriiiiiiight. white people have nver come to a different country and treated citizens terribly. What's your point? Some white people did some bad things in the past therefor all white people deserve whatever they get? >but it is about evil white cunts... You can't have it both ways. If white people are not allowed to be angry about anything Muslims do then you are not allowed to be angry about anything white people do. >come on, you can do better... a) don't tell other people how to dress b) not all women wear burqa or hijab c) many people don't share that opinion... This isn't about finding the 1 exception to the rule. Immigrants are flooding Europe. Most of them are Muslim. Many of them are raping women. Muslim religion and culture treats women as subhuman. Connect the dots. >for a good reason. and guess who shares the blame for that reason even coming up? I agree. If my ancestors repeatedly failed to build anything resembling a civilized society after thousands and thousands of years of trying they I would gtfo too. That's not an argument for opening the borders and letting such people swarm inside though. Can you see how some people would see this as an argument for doing the opposite? >unless when it's far right propaganda and the crimes didn't happen or are grossly misrepresented You think the crimes never happened or are being exaggerated by the media. Other people think more crimes happen and the media is covering it up. What makes you think you are correct? >the difference is we welcome foreigners, they didn't come here with a sword and smallpox Clearly not everyone welcomes them. And if you censor dissent and exclude them from the political process then what do you except them to do but start committing acts of violence? This is terrorism 101.

>>11036 > "I agree that generally speaking europe > middle eastern culture" >source? The argument was made here >>11016 >the literal definition of a refugee/migrant is somebody who has fuarrrked up their own country so badly that they prefer to live somewhere else. That alone makes your values and culture inferior to that of the countries you are smuggling your way into.

>>10877 I don't care for it on a meta level. I don't come to lainchan for current events or political arguments. I like lainchan for cool discussions on technology topics.

>>11048 >What's your point? Some white people did some bad things in the past therefor all white people deserve whatever they get? that goes both ways, no? >then you are not allowed to be angry about anything white people do. i am white and not a muslim (raised as an atheist actually), so actually it doesn't apply here >Many of them are raping women. Muslim religion and culture treats women as subhuman. Connect the dots. again, source? >What a solid argument. what a witty retort > agree. If my ancestors repeatedly failed to build anything resembling a civilized society after thousands and thousands of years of trying they I would gtfo too. That's not an argument for opening the borders and letting such people swarm inside though. Can you see how some people would see this as an argument for doing the opposite? a) this is just racist bs again b) ummm.... that wasn't what i was talking about >What makes you think you are correct? same goes to you? >Clearly not everyone welcomes them. And if you censor dissent and exclude them from the political process then what do you except them to do but start committing acts of violence? yes. because racists have been excluded from the political process and until recently had never been violent...

>>11049 i meant actual proof or fact instead of a a stupid "oh they fuarrrked up their country" not-an-actual-argument

>>11016 >Just generally, the literal definition of a refugee/migrant is somebody who has fuarrrked up their own country so badly that they prefer to live somewhere else. >neurosuggesting major natural disasters are peoples fault >neurosuggesting people living under brutal dictatorships where opposition means death is peoples fault >neurosuggesting widespread gang violence by well-trained ruthless criminal organizations is the farmer, factory worker, and common man's fault >neurosuggesting foreign nations fuarrrking up your countries infrastructure or economic system over something your leader said is the peoples fault

It is weird how in todays world a person can't feel prideful about work of few hundred generations that created their genetics, culture and nation and to see yourself as culmination of all that sweat and hard work in creating such a magnificent world we live in.

>>11070 >such a magnificent world we live in Much of that hard work was just killing other people and much of that magnificent world is a polluted cesspool now.

>>11070 this has literally nothing to do with this. but good job.

>>11071 humanity was a mistake

>>11070 there is a difference between pride and a feeling of superiority. i am proud for who i am and i am not ashamed to be queer (since it was kinda on the table thanks to your pic), but i have no reason to feel superior for being white. re: "feel prideful about work of few hundred generations" vs your pic - the queer kiddo is queer. that's them. you're talking about something someone who shares your ethnicity did. not that either of that is a reason to be smug.

>>11074 Nobody feels smug in the pursuit of wanting to preserve their heritage whether it be genetic, cultural or materialistic.. Not superiority but fully prideful.

>>11071 Good job on confirming my point about how a person can't feel prideful by posting such self deprecating shame filled post.

>>11075 > the pursuit of wanting to preserve their heritage and what does that have to do with the topic? > genetic what is that good for?

>>11076 maybe you should try to find actual reasons to be proud of you being (presumably) white then.

>>10879 or in the world in general :/

>>11078 I already did. I am just trying to prove a point with you. Thanks. >>11077 Why are you asking questions? To just hear me answer them?

>>11076 That wasn't self-deprecating in the slightest. Consult a dictionary.

>>11081 How come?

>>11082 Because what I said was about the state of the entire world, not about my own part in it. That's not "self-deprecating".

>>11083 Oh right, you must be really confident and empowered person and feels pride about their heritage. I am sorry about my assumptions.

>>11080 i don't know what point you want to prove with me... you probably mean the other guy >To just hear me answer them? that's how conversation works, usually. seriously though, what is genetic heritage good for? what should i be proud of? that my father's semen got into my mother and in 9 months she spit me out? should i be proud of that "random" genetic mutation happening in her womb? or should be proud of genetic predisposition to lactose intolerance and cancer? genetics doesn't mean soykaf. cultural heritage is a nice thing, but it really isn't something threatened by immigrants. and if it was, there's one to think about...

>>11083 >>11084 You know, because people that can't stop bitchin about state of the world usually feel pride about accomplishments of their predecessors.

>>11084 So... I'm a racist retard or I hate myself? There are no other options?

>>11086 Dude, whatever man... the world is like, a beautiful place. Don't harsh my mellow dude.

>>11087 well one can be a racist and still hate themselves *shrug*

>>11089 Well that combination is quite common as I've observed.

honestly i am just surprised nobody has mentioned the fall of rome yet in this thread

>>11090 in my opinion that's why they are racist... you know, the only way how they can deal with their own problems, soykafty life, and inner demons.

>>11091 Well, they had "bread and circuses" to keep people quiet before the end. We have Netflix and the golden age of television.

>>11085 >that my father's semen got into my mother and in 9 months she spit me out? That the genetic chance, environment and culture over hundreds of thousands of years created a little bit different human. That it took a lot of effort to get you to where you are now. Be prideful for it. >should i be proud of that "random" genetic mutation happening in her womb? No, but the selective nature of natural selection that kills those that environment doesn't like. >genetics doesn't mean soykaf. Except when it does matter, which is why genetic engineering is such a hot topic issue in next few decades. >cultural heritage is a nice thing OH REALLY? And where did this culture sprung out from? The ground? Came from the God above? AND WHY DON'T WE ALL HAVE THE SAME CULTURE THEN? Could it be, WAIT A fuarrrkING SECOND, that different cultures sprung out from different genetics and environments? I mean, I never seen Eskimos worship Sun Gods. I never seen barbaric countries have egalitarian cultures where they have more socialistic leanings.... fuarrrk me man, it is almost as if people that live in those environments create cultures as culminations of genetics and their environments. >but it really isn't something threatened by immigrants I mean yea. Not like importing vast numbers of people that are socially isolated with language and culture into your country will in any way shape or change your own culture.... that is ridiculous to think.

>>11093 nobody's giving *me* free avocado toasts though. seriously though, the world is a quite soykafty place. but it's always been. one can't really look at the history and think it was better back then.

>>11094 >be proud of a pure genetic chance >No, but the selective nature of natural selection that kills those that environment doesn't like. that's not how it works, man >Except when it does matter, which is why genetic engineering is such a hot topic issue in next few decades. *cough* one more reason why genetic heritage doesn't mean soykaf *cough* > if people that live in those environments create cultures as culminations of genetics and their environments. i doubt it has anything to do with genetics >I mean yea. Not like importing vast numbers of people that are socially isolated with language and culture into your country will in any way shape or change your own culture.... that is ridiculous to think. a) they can learn the language b) you've been talking about evolution. culture does evolve too. your culture is (presumably) not the same as it was a hundred years ago (correct me if i am wrong)

>>11094 >socialistic leanings.... well, the whole "immigrants are bad and my culture is great because it's european" isn't that leftist either hun

>>11095 The world being better back then wasn't the point at all. There's this saying about people not knowing history being doomed to repeat it... perhaps you've heard of it.

>>11098 yes. your point? that our bureaucracy and inefficient administration could have an effect on the downfall of our civilisation? probably, yeah. but hey, there's gonna be something else (unless we kill each other before then)

>>11099 > your point? Don't think I can state it any clearer than I have, sorry.

>>11055 >that goes both ways, no? Yes it does go both ways. Nobody said anything different except you. Weird way to admit you were wrong but ok. >i am white and not a muslim (raised as an atheist actually), so actually it doesn't apply here >uses race as a get out of jail card >accuses everyone else of being racist Talk about hypocrisy. >again, source? Source for what? Take Saudi Arabia. Women are literally property of their fathers. Whey they get married they are the property of their husbands. When their fathers/husbands die they become to property of their closest male relative, even their sons if there is no one else. That is the kind of culture we are dealing with here. Women are subhuman. >same goes to you? I didn't say anything. Both sides could be wrong as far as I'm concerned. You are the one who asserted that the media is fabricating and exaggerating immigrant crimes. I understand why you *want* to believe that but the question is what actual evidence do you have. >yes. because racists have been excluded from the political process and until recently had never been violent... That should give you a clue about how bad the immigration problem is getting in the real world outside your little political bubble then.

>>11056 >i meant actual proof or fact instead of a a stupid "oh they fuarrrked up their country" not-an-actual-argument You are just moving the goal posts; continuously asking for more evidence with no intention of accepting anything you're shown. The argument is fine as it is >brown people are immigrating to white countries en masse >white people are not immigrating to brown countries at all => white culture is superior

dem crazy kiwis streamed on facebook is a problem vastly for smaller websites

>>11109 at this point i am sure you're a troll >>11108 >Weird way to admit you were wrong but ok. let me reformulate that. if white people can't be blamed, don't blame others either >Talk about hypocrisy. not at all, from my experience people "accuse" me of not being white and hating white people... so wanted to make sure lains in this thread understand where i am coming from > Take Saudi Arabia. wow. you based your prejudice towards a religion on a country... >That should give you a clue about how bad the immigration problem is getting in the real world outside your little political bubble then. that was sarcasm, hun. also i think we both are in a political bubble by your logic. > the question is what actual evidence do you have. mainly when it's been misrepresented. but i am not denying crimes don't happen/

>>10994 Just dug this up, looks like the first mosque he targeted reportedly radicalized at least 2 adults and openly admits to preaching salafism. https://web.archive.org/web/20190318100919/http://stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/10310496/A-kiwi-lads-death-by-drone Funnily enough this article disappeared right around March 18-20th, a few days after the shooting (March 15). >>11112 Not the guy you were replying to but holy soykaf lain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Saudi_Arabia "Islam is the state religion of Saudi Arabia. The connection between Islam and Saudi Arabia (or at least the western Hejaz region of the country) is uniquely strong. The kingdom, which sometimes is called the "home of Islam"..." "Islam plays a central role in Saudi society. It has been said that Islam is more than a religion, it is a way of life in Saudi Arabia, and, as a result, the influence of the ulema, the religious establishment, is all-pervasive...." If a country is so infatuated with a given faith that they openly say "it defines our entire way of life", isn't it possible that the country is representative of that faith? Not trying to get too worked up here, but I am struggling to understand how Saudi Arabia can be denied as demonstrative of the effects of a certain form of Islam being enforced via socioeconomic and political power. Now you can backtrack and argue that not all muslims are salafi's or wahaddi's and that is fine and well, but you must concede that for salafi and wahaddi muslims, Saudi Arabia represents, to at least a reasonable approximation, what they think a godly society would look like.

>>11113 but i never argued that. i said you can't judge muslims by saudi arabia. we try to not do the same with christians either... so what is it about islam that people cherry pick bad example?

>>11112 >wow. you based your prejudice towards a religion on a country... A country that is completely structured around said religion both legally and socially. >mainly when it's been misrepresented. but i am not denying crimes don't happen/ More back peddling. >>11035 >unless when it's far right propaganda and the crimes didn't happen or are grossly misrepresented >everyone who disagrees with me is a troll The last refuge of the delusional.

>>11109 This is a bit harsh. One thing that is often missed in these types of discussions is that the people abandoning their homelands and traveling 1000s of miles and across the sea to get into Europe are not doctors and engineers or anywhere near middle class. They are basically the islamic equivalent of rednecks. Imagine that as a thought experiment. Take 1 million or so trailer park white trash rednecks from the south and dump in them Tokyo or Seoul. How do you think things will play out?

I don't understand leftists ITT that try to argue that identities like ethnicity and nationality have no weight IRL when it's basic winning strategy in social interactions that has been mathematically proven. We are social beings, and our power is numbers, and ethnocentric strategy is one that wins over in the end.

>>11119 > mathematically proven Except it hasn't. Look up the term "confirmation bias" and get back to us.

>>11120 Did you even look at the paper? Lmao

>>11120 >Except it hasn't. Look up the term "confirmation bias" and get back to us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias >Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. The implication being that there is other evidence, or an interpretation of the already shown evidence, which disproves the argument. And you should be able to post it. You can't just shout "confirmation bias" at everything you disagree with and leave it at that. That's Bulverism (go look that one up and get back to us).

if anyone is interested in the paper they didn't cite btw, it's right here http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html the conclusions of the paper: the "ethnocentrics" in their model won out because they are exploitative of humanitarians. Also, in the absence of "ethnocentrism", "humanitarianism" wins. They didn't even try to model tit-for-tat exchange, which is by far the most common way for people irl to interact (being nice to people makes other people more likely to be nice to you) and also the most consistently beneficial strategy in multiple iterations of the prisoner's dilemma. Basically their model is too simplistic to draw conclusions from.

To the response of person who made the post about ethnocentrism, I think I have read somewhere that implicit bias is ingrained in everyones mind and that everyone innately have subconscious negative response to people outside their "group"

I removed a lot of soykafposts from this thread and will be removing more, but try harder to follow rules 3 and 4. For ease of reference, I will list them: >Rule 3. Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. > Rule 4. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf.

>>11137 >tit-for-tat exchange it's called "individualism" or "selfishness" in the paper. >Also, in the absence of "ethnocentrism", "humanitarianism" wins So? That is like saying "if only earthquakes didn't happen then people that live on oceanic rift would live a bit better lives". Yea, no soykaf. Fact of reality is that, existence of ethnocentric behavior isn't only ingrained in our psyche through thousands of years of tribal instincts (I remember one paper long ago where they flashed neutral faces of white and black people to white and black observers and observers had more positive response to faces of their own races) but also that ethnocentric or in-group preference behavior is inevitability due to social behavior rules. We are stronger in numbers, and like people that are just like us. Therefore we will unite against a same enemy and towards a same goal which will make all of us stronger. Be it race, ethnicity, career, ideology. People will form groups and have in-group preferences. >being nice to people makes other people more likely to be nice to you Wow, thanks for explanation of this, didn't know. >and also the most consistently beneficial strategy in multiple iterations of the prisoner's dilemma Prisoner's dilemma doesn't pertain to group behavior but individuals behavior therefore in this discussion your mention of it is irrelevant >Basically their model is too simplistic to draw conclusions from Maybe you should tell them that and correct them. Or is it that you don't have credentials strong enough to be considered worthy of their time to listen to your critique. All you did was imply your intellect by having a simple explanation of vast topics of human psyche.

wow this really starts reading like some pathetic ass soykaf, how boring, I thought thread was off to an interesting start too darn

>>11154 you should have seen before all the extremely bad posts were deleted, these are just the ones that were left.

>>11154 It's hard to find leftists who can hold an argument. Most just play the racist card straight away then run away crying when it doesn't work.

>>11153 >it's called "individualism" or "selfishness" in the paper. the four strategies they considered: SelfishA strategy of defecting against all other agents. Traitor A strategy of cooperating with agents of a different tag and defecting against agents of one's own tag. EthnocentricA strategy of cooperating with agents of one's own tag and defecting against agents with a different tag. HumanitarianA strategy of cooperating with all other agents. >Prisoner's dilemma doesn't pertain to group behavior but individuals behavior therefore in this discussion your mention of it is irrelevant prisoner's dilemma is directly discussed as the underlying game being played within individuals in this model. >Maybe you should tell them that and correct them. I'm sure they've heard these exact criticisms before, it's not like they're difficult to point out. They even explicitly make these same points that I'm making. >Or is it that you don't have credentials strong enough to be considered worthy of their time to listen to your critique. yes, that is the only possible reason. Definitely. >>11156 yeah, it was all these damn leftists dissing a psychopath murderer. Real shame.

He killed unarmed people

>>11159 I agree, if only they had guns stashed in the basement of the mosque like all those other muslims. Lmao

I think thia ia timely retribution in reaponse to what muslims have been doing to white people all this time. However couple dozen people isn't even as close as equivalent as thousands raped killed stolen from just in past few years.

>>11161 a proud Neto doing her part

I can feel this thread being on the verge of closure so let me just voice my thoughts. This the result of years of cultivated radicalization. I tried to warn these people about this too, that if they let themselves be radicalized then they'll become the nazi scapegoat the establishment so desperately wanted to be real. But did they listen? fuarrrk no. Instead they snarked at me about "optics". They only have themselves to blame. They could have done like any sane person does when they see someone from their group getting violent: tell them to fuarrrk off and call them a fed, even if they're not. But instead, they let it get this way.

>>11164 When they all hit 30, realize they still have a job they hate and no girlfriend and that everyone thinks they are dangerous wingnuts, the alt-right will finally dry up and blow away. It happens to all subcultures, only this one won't be remembered for contributing anything in terms of art or culture except a cartoon frog.

its disgusting and makes me think counter violence is the only answer. even worse as someone who used to be politics board kid and i know after this happened they were all celebrating. i know these people have no concept of the weight of human life or the suffering they cause because i know i was like that. thats the worst part i think. and there is no grand revelation i get from all this, its not like I can go "oh hey I used to be like you and i changed" that doesnt mean soykaf. I dont get any kind of ethos from the fact that I used to argue the same soykaf and celebrate crap like this. I just have an understanding of how someone gets there and how awful they can be and I have a lot of regret. If someone said something like that in real life is feel 100% justified in just attacking them, like if I went to jail id feel like im a victim of the state because I was doing the right thing. if I died, even if I got shot by lets say some shooter from "the other side" (me being white and having a crucifex necklace as well as religious tattoos), id feel like a martyr or something. Like it was worth dying there. and i know thats not right too so I try not to say that or think like that. everyone loses until everyone wins. violence is cyclical. but this specific instance such complete disregard for human life, and I KNOW hes not mentally ill. I dont even think hes a psychopath, I feel like any number of people on this board could do the same fuarrrking thing. You just have to have a view of reality through this lens, and see life as kind of this game. Could that have been me even? I dont think so, my friends say im too understanding in this sense. Like the fact is I didnt stay like that, while many of these people do. But its still easy for me to just understand and so I feel like "I did that too, I could have done that shooting". this one just really got to me more than any of the other ones and I also know its the one that made the people i hate so so much laugh the hardest. like someone will probably laugh at this post too because its just not real to them "sub to pewdiepie XD". but fuarrrking listen please, im extreme lefty so I dont want to see this ever but think about this. This wasnt somebody in i dont know Israel or India who had a relative who got blown up by a Muslim suicide bomber. Its some dude who reads about these things and sees these things online and then gets annoyed at some lady in a Hijab being loud in public and somehow forces himself to have personal stake in the issue by equating his minor annoyances with terrorist attacks. Im in some ways doing the same fuarrrking thing and I shouldnt. I dont think its ever okay to get revenge anyways on civilians for something committed by somebody who happens to share their religion or ethnicity, that should be obvious you should know this isnt a good thing and maybe like me just get fired up and say it. But to do that without even having any personal stake in the issue besides "there is more muslims in my country now". I get even more annoyed because you know there was a time when the right was fairly well versed on lefts arguments and it was the left that didnt understand the right wasnt all midwestern rednecks but its almost the opposite now. In reality its probably equal, you people who support this only see and read the worst of the worst arguments by "sjw snowflake left". Half the time the basis for soykaf like this is clash of civilizations theory, that theres just something about islam that makes it incompatible with the west and creates "muslim rage" just by them living here. There is so many critiques of this available and instead you choose to decide that the only counterargument the left has is "Islam is a religion of peace!". Its not either, just like any other religion. There is so many different sects and groups practicing, ESPECIALLY because Islam isnt like the bible where its set in stone. Islamic extremism, ISIS's teachings, are actually considered a modernist interpretation. Its a recent development, Islamic scholars at one point probably translated your favorites of greek literature and much of the ideals ended up being implemented into the popular interpretation of the QuRan. Its not monolithic, perhaps the biggest reason its so easy to target them and paint them as extremists is that maybe one fairly consistent thing is they dont believe religion is seperate from daily life. Its not secular like christianity has become. I feel like those of you who would condone this attack arent my fellow man even. Do you really want to do the right thing and do you really care about the truth or do you just enjoy being reactionary, do you just enjoy being in a mob, or do you just enjoy having some kind of life purpose. Do you just want to see the world burn and if so do you even actually know what you are burning? I hate distinctions of barbarism and civilized, races and countries in nonage and those who are rational, I think its all soykaf. But if we take all these ideas about natural rights, the value of civilization, the values of our white christian society, you guys are becoming the barbarians yourselves. None of your ideaological leaders, even if that person is mr Varg Vikernes or something extreme, would condone this soykaf I feel like. Your acting against your principles im almost sure always, and you are going to get a lot of people hurt on all sides. I know how you see the left and you see them as very weak but its not always gonna be like that and I dont want to see indiscriminate killings from my side of the block either. I believe violence is sometimes the answer specifically against an oppressor but not against civilians, I dont believe you guys have an oppressor, but I know you do. Why dont you target them instead by god, target ISIS and groups radicalizing Muslims and even non muslims to be enemies of the west. Target whatever millionaire is funding some campaign to present Islam is a religion of peace, I would rather in fact you target some scholar writing radical left papers. Id like to engage in that sort of activity and I think I will so il tell you what in 10 years come over and shoot me instead. Id rather you shoot nobody and only do so to defend yourself from harm. If you cant id rather you target radical groups on the other side. If you cant do that id rather you target those providing the literature for them. But I do not ever ever want to see this kind of thing, and I force myself to watch it amyways because I feel like its such a luxury to just be able to see I dont want to look at that. And I feel like its important to bear witness. And I watch it and I want to do the same fuarrrking thing and destroy, kill, torture, rape, the worst I can think of to anyone wearing a red make america great again hat. But I dont think I ever will, and I still dont know if im worse or better for that.

>>11166 Quality post in this ocean of piss thread. >And I watch it and I want to do the same fuarrrking thing and destroy, kill, torture, rape, the worst I can think of to anyone wearing a red make america great again hat. >But I dont think I ever will, and I still dont know if im worse or better for that. This part confused me. Aren't you obviously better to not want to kill innocent people who simply have a different opinion?

>>11167 a lot of the people wearing those hats are the same people who, in their deepest darkest hearts, support what this man has done

>>11167 I feel like yes and no. In some ways I feel like a failure to friends, like I have an obligation to do that. Like part of me feels like those people really are the enemy. Its hard for me to see how even some "sjw" screaming is equivalent to somebody who fundamentally as I see it, doesnt value certain peoples lives. Let alone compare that to people praying in a mosque who welcom this man with a gun. But I think morally its the right choice, like when I die I would deeply regret killing someone who wasnt directly involved in the business of harm. It would be like my memory I go out with. Which I feel is right depends on how spiritual im feeling that day. If all I saw was the material world and I do often the former seems like the right choice.

>>11166 >its disgusting and makes me think counter violence is the only answer. >If someone said something [I disagree with] in real life is feel 100% justified in just attacking them, Good start there ghandi. >But to do that without even having any personal stake in the issue besides "there is more muslims in my country now". And they are making the country worse and political/non-violent ways of fixing the problem are disappearing. You are grossly misrepresenting his position to make it look unreasonable instead of countering in good faith. >I get even more annoyed because you know there was a time when the right was fairly well versed on lefts arguments and it was the left that didnt understand the right wasnt all midwestern rednecks but its almost the opposite now. So when you were a "politics board kid" you understood how stupid the other side was and nobody could understand how brilliant your side was. Now you are a "extreme lefty" you understand how stupid the other side is and nobody can understand how brilliant your side is? That's so deep. >There is so many critiques of this available and instead you choose to decide that the only counterargument the left has is "Islam is a religion of peace!" You can masturbate over different "critiques" in your middle class ivory tower as much as you want but the only thing that matters to people on the ground is how they see Muslims behaving on *their* streets and many don't like what they see. >I dont believe you guys have an oppressor, but I know you do. >Why dont you target them instead by god, target ISIS and groups radicalizing Muslims and even non muslims to be enemies of the west. If someone thinks Muslims are invading their country and destroying their way of life why would they target anyone else? >target ISIS and groups radicalizing Muslims >I would rather in fact you target some scholar writing radical left papers. You are projecting your own values onto everyone else. Nationalist don't give a fuarrrk what Muslims believe as long as they believe it in their own countries. >And I watch it and I want to do the same fuarrrking thing and destroy, kill, torture, rape, the worst I can think of to anyone wearing a red make america great again hat. You seem to have some serious self awareness problems here. How do you rationally justify "not all Muslims" and at the same time wanting to kill anybody you see with a red hat? You sound exactly the same as the people you hate so much just with the variables transposed. >>11167 >Quality post in this ocean of piss thread. Don't throw your standards out the window just because somebody vaguely agrees with you.

>>11171 I just thought it was quality because he actually explained himself without being boring, I barely agreed with it.

>>11171 >Now you are a "extreme lefty" you understand how stupid the other side is and nobody can understand how brilliant your side is? That's so deep. pic related >>11159 We've already covered this earlier in the thread, but: Read his manifesto, consider his motivations, then consider his possible routes of action. I'm not saying we should condone his actions, but if you cannot understand why someone would carry out an act of terror or why they became radicalized, how can you expect to prevent future attacks? Limiting access to munitions just makes attacks require more planning, changing the way future radicals think makes the world a safer place. >>11166 >so many teachings, not all muslims are radical, but they are not secular Lain I think you are missing a key point, it is the non-radical, non-secular muslims that are causing the most harm to their host countries. Sure terror attacks are bad, a few people get knifed or hit by the trolley, but the real danger are incompatibilities in lifestyle between the host countries of migrants and their new western homes. See [1]. Those men were not radicals, foaming at the bit for western blood. They were simply living as their holy text and previous culture told them was acceptable. Secular muslims would be alright except they provide a shroud of rationality for the darker parts of the religion to masquerade behind. Full disclosure: Replace the word "muslim" in the only the preceding sentence with christian or any other faith and you have I statement that I believe is equally valid. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

>>11184 The sad thing about Rotherham is that they weren't refugees fresh off a boat, they were born in the UK, 2nd generation+ immigrants from Pakistani ancestors. Muslims just don't integrate into UK society. They take over entire streets or even towns and continue doing the same soykaf that makes their home countries unlivable soykafholes. It's not just Muslims though. Indians are just as bad sometimes, beating the soykaf out of their teenage daughters for refusing to fuarrrk some random cousin they've picked out for her. >Secular muslims would be alright except they provide a shroud of rationality for the darker parts of the religion to masquerade behind. Full disclosure: Replace the word "muslim" in only the preceding sentence with christian or any other faith and you have I statement that I believe is equally valid. I don't think it's necessarily exclusive to religion. The problem is with incestuous cultures that can't or refuse to learn and adapt (with religion being the primary reason in many cases). Japan is an excellent counter-example. How many times has Japan been devastated by superior western technology? Every time they got their soykaf together and improved themselves. They didn't just run away to richer countries looking for free stuff.

>>11166 Well, this is definitely one of the more unique perspectives I've seen. >its disgusting and makes me think counter violence is the only answer.

>>11184 >Lain I think you are missing a key point, it is the non-radical, non-secular muslims that are causing the most harm to their host countries. ah, so it's the people who by definition aren't trying to rock the boat who are bad. I see. This makes perfect sense.

>>11185 >How many times has Japan been devastated by superior western technology? once >Every time they got their soykaf together and improved themselves. They were forced into the Marshall plan along with the non-USSR parts of Europe. Japan is prosperous for exactly the same reason why western Europe is prosperous. >They didn't just run away to richer countries looking for free stuff. there is a huge japanese diaspora my dude.

>>11188 It's arguable whether the Japanese went to Hawaii on their own free will. They were mainly contract laborers for the sugar plantations that were bound to leave as soon as the contract term was up; again, not out for themselves or free stuff.

>>11188 Also there are about 2 million Japanese in the diaspora, compared with 100 million people in Japan, whereas there are over 10 million Syrians in their diaspora, compared with about 20 million people in Syria. I wouldn't call 0.2% of the world population "huge".

>>11188 >once The first time Portuguese ships arrived with gunpower it didn't go so well for them either.

>>11187 >ah, so it's the people who by definition aren't trying to rock the boat who are bad. I see. This makes perfect sense. What definition is that? They don't run people over with trucks but their actions and attitudes are still corrosive. A million paper cuts can be just as bad as a single bullet.

Really disappointed with all the lainons who for whatever reason have fallen for the far-right's rhetoric in this thread. A century ago the line was "The Italians/Irish/Pollacks are destroying our culture, taking our jobs and subverting our religious values!" The country still exists, white people still exist, nothing's changed but their acceptance into mainstream society. And besides, it's the far-right who tacitly admits that these immigrants stay in their own communities and don't assimilate. What does that mean? Whites will still exist, because no matter the faux demographic change statistics they provide, people of the same race overwhelming prefer people of the same race (shocker).

Guy was a hero, he didn't do anything objectively wrong. He accomplished his primary objective, dead muslims. The secondary objectives of crackdowns was to make the people he opposed show their hand. He has accomplished this in spades. And lains should be paying close attention to the censorship techniques, language, and ideas being thrown around right now since these things are now being rushed. Rushed, and imperfect. As to Mr. Tarrant, it's perfectly level, the time for debate is over the populists in the election who were the only chance at compromise failed or have turned their back to the base. Simply this, by 2050 there will not of the Allied and Axis nations in WW2 exist a majority white nation. That is not deniable it is a stated fact. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/sep/03/race.world And has been for decades at this point at the behest of the intelligentsia and governments of the world. To expect every white person to be a minority in their country peacefully is not only sickening its ridiculous. It will carry with it the social disarray and decay of the Yugoslav Republic and Brazil all in one. At this moment in Burger foreign gangs are already moving in and have compromised border counties. https://www.foxnews.com/us/members-of-mexican-drug-cartel-indicted-in-virginia https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/18/us/drugs-crossing-border.html >The corruption that took down those three border sheriffs in 1994, 2005 and 2014 continues today. Next month, the former police chief in the town of La Joya is scheduled to go on trial, after he was indicted on drug charges and accused by federal authorities of helping a drug-trafficking organization ttaransport narcotics while working as a police sergeant in Progreso, Tex. There is no single reason to believe that this trend will not only continue but intensify. The defensive organs of these societies are poisoned. They are not assimilating, not because they can't but because they choose not to. Adopting the soft tendencies to live with porn, tv, and video games is not assimilating, its partaking of our poison. These cartels require the hispanic population in the US to give them a cover to operate under. No hispanics in town or nearby means no cartel, its undeniable. Tarrant's actions are the reactionary response to this poison. He hit at the organ of which things like Cartels and Rape Gangs operate, without caring about who he hit. That does more damage to them than anything, they're on edge, they know they're not welcome, where's the next vigilante coming from? Its a call to open warfare, that is what the act was. Because the whole root of this problem is that whites are being replaced in their country. White's aren't needed anymore, you made the stuff - thanks; they'll take it. For the question of why people are confused he'd attack and make things harder on people. Get rid of the do-nothings and cowards from the tip of the spear. On this timeline, there's thirty years likely less, for these people to act. They've been organizing since the 50's and haven't accomplished a thing. And you can't have cowards in your ranks holding you back. <But they're killing children Was he he supposed to wait for them to grow up? The thing you should be aware of is that when your government is so eager to extinguish you for some toys and comfort, what are they going to do to your children? Its a murderous ideology, they mince no words about this; so be it. All peaceful options have been exhausted from running, political office, homeladsOrania, County Govt.s What I'm actually excited for besides the fallout and copycats, is what this means for hidden service infrastructure. i2p is nothing but Chinese and Russians right now, freenet was/is pedoland haven't used it in a while, tor hs are boring or just clearnet clones. The first instance of mass censorship by Western governments and its a flop. >>11208 The country was changed fundamentally. They pushed the cities to control the vote, the country religiously adopted a more Catholic demeanor, they formed mafias before assimilation which the assimilation only occurred in opposition to SEA and Hispanics which has continued to the current day.

>>11210 >he didn't do anything objectively wrong Don't want to turn this into a objectivism/subjectivism debate but most people will agree that murder of people who cannot fight back is wrong in any circumstance. >To expect every white person to be a minority in their country peacefully is not only sickening its ridiculous Why, do you think minorities not treated well in the western world?

>>11215 >Don't want to turn this into a objectivism/subjectivism debate but most people will agree that murder of people who cannot fight back is wrong in any circumstance. Most people don't matter. His goal was to hurt their numbers and he did. Not much, and its meaningless outside of the context of the type of warfare he's trying to call and introduce. And on this note, what is The Hooton Plan? The notion of destroying a societies ability to reproduce has been around for a long time. Brenton Tarrant didn't stop muslim birth rates though, he just destroyed a dozen muslim families. An army of guys like him? That would have an impact. The fight that he is participating in, is one of total biological annihilation. Our group or yours. There can be only one. The crackdowns are to rush any implementations that are being thought of; which is more beneficial in the long run. What is the TOR project's plan if the US Govt. threatens the ISP's for allowing tor traffic through Europe and the US? Or hits the i2p bootstrap nodes? What's the backups? >Why, do you think minorities not treated well in the western world? Depends. Some places they bend over backwards to kiss their ass. One place I lived they finally had a black person move in and the school staff worshipped him. It was like their very own pet nigger. Other's they make it plain they don't want them around. They don't belong here, and the notion of bringing only the "best" makes me sick since taking the only functioning members of their society and bringing them to ours only makes things worse.

>>11215 Not that lain but figured I'd share my thoughts. >Why, do you think minorities not treated well in the western world? Not him, but I think the important question is not: >Do white majority western countries treat minorities well? But instead: >Will those minorities, upon become the majority, treat the now minority white population well? And from I've seen so far, my money is on no. We've got a long-running dialogue now in academia that is rapidly running over into popular culture about whites as the oppressor, the evil emperor, racist privileged spook. Mix that popular ideology with the all too common human desire to assert a newfound power and take revenge for past wrongs and you have the grounds for an unpleasant future for white folks in the western world. This also depends on the particulars of the country. Outside of broad cultural reasons, certain minority subcultures (esp. those with traditional religious values) tend to be aggressively in-group favoring (ie: jews, muslims, christians pre-modern bathwater christianity). This natural bias will also likely provide strong motivations for abuse of newfound majority power. To be clear, I'm not trying to paint minorities as the devil or whatever. It is 100% basic human instinct to beat the soykaf out of whoever you think has been holding you down all this time. At the same time, fuarrrk fundamentalist religions, they are a stain on everything we as a species could have dreamed to accomplish and are only useful as a tool for establishing fascist regimes for temporary stabilization of otherwise doomed regions.

>>11208 I don't think anyone's mind is changed in this thread. It's just some random soykafpost followed by people conditioned to spew their opinions for internet points. They'll soon go away. There aren't any points here. When everyone on this thread signs off for the day, they'll look at the clock and wonder why they wasted so much time here, arguing for no good reason. They'll go back to where they can get upboats and a pat on the head for their progress on being assimilated by their lefty/righty masters.

>>11215 >minorities not treated well in the western world It's EVERYWHERE, not just western world. In China the Uyghurs don't get nicely treated. In japan the the Ainu get treated as fuarrrking idiotic peasants. Every minority has been treated badly, AND FOR A GOOD REASON. That's a simple in group preference, to imply it's just happening in western world is absolutely idiotic.

>>11208 >The country still exists, white people still exist The argument isn't that they don't exist at the moment, but that with the course of way of things that they will cease to exist in the near future. Whites are global minority with small birthrates and most countries with majority white population is getting bombarded with high amounts of immigration (whether legal or illegal). The pundits are calling for white people to stop breeding to conserve the planet and "muh overpopulation" whilst at the same time talking about how they're not breeding enough and that we need more young strong cheap immigrant labor.

If you really believe in the "great replacement" I would encourage you to watch this video debunking it. He goes through a lot of details such as - white population's are not going down, but up - minority birth rate level over a generation or two - and why people in higher up places want to keep this fear in people https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbxVfSqtt8

>>11210 > i2p is nothing but Chinese and Russians right now, freenet was/is pedoland Pedos is what you want. If your secure communications platform isn't being used by terrorists and pedophiles, you're probably doing it wrong. A wise man said that once. >>11215 >Why, do you think minorities not treated well in the western world? First of all the principle of losing your homeland to people who did nothing to deserve it except outbreed you and exploit your generosity shouldn't be lost on you. But also for the most part minorities in some place are majorities somewhere else. It's a *choice* for them to live as a minority in exchange for some other benefit. Having no choice and being a minority everywhere is not a good situation to be in. >>11210 is right, history shows that violence is inevitable e.g. Jews in pre-state Palestine or Kurds in Syria.

>>11238 >- and why people in higher up places want to keep this fear in people If that was true they would have published Tarrant's manifesto in newspapers instead of putting people in jail for reading it. What's actually happening is anyone not in favor of open borders and strength through diversity is censored and beaten into oblivion by your so called people in higher up places.

>>11238 You aren't here to have a honest debate with us but to "educate" us. You are just spreading your propaganda and seeing us as just your objects. >"HERE, WATCH THIS VIDEO" We can show you a video or two to you too, but that won't change your opinions either now would it?

>>11241 yeah, that's why they're able to commit horrific acts of violence. Oh wait.

>>11238 Now trying to debate a video that is "doing your debating for you" is fuarrrking idiotic simply because it is debating Lauren Southern, not the idea of white genocide. >white population's are not going down, but up Wrong. European countries and white populations all around either barely scrape above the replacement levels or under them. >- minority birth rate level over a generation or two So what? If you keep having borders open what will stop a Nigerian to come into France? Surely his childrens children won't fuarrrk like rabbits like him but at that time all white people already had 1 baby per family and all his friends came over to France too because he said it's really nice over there. What we should focus on is promoting birth rates in native populations instead of promoting simple import of other people. >- and why people in higher up places want to keep this fear in people No they fuarrrking don't. Up until 2016 nobody fuarrrking said a thing about anything. It was only after years of that ape president and leftists talking about how they wanna kiss the feet of "muh hard worker immigrants" that ANYONE spoke against this madness, AND NOW ALL OF THE SUDDEN "the elite" want this divide and conquer? REALLY? I guess every political division and every situation can be explained in your loonie brain as "proletariat against bourgeoisie" but when the neonazis say "jews" instead of "bourgeoisie" and "white" instead of "proletariat" then you back off? OH PISS OFF.

>>11244 Antifa? The normalization of demonizing the right wing? Also why do you talk like that? Like these one line low word count sentences, not explaining anything and this high horse "oh wait" snapping mannerisms and passive aggressive way of talking. I only found that prissy men who aren't really assertive talk to others like that, nobody else to be honest. Because if you truly believed what you were spouting then you would have no fear of talking honestly or confidently and without anger because you would love just simply talking about it, not see it as means to an end, as I think you see us.

>>11247 I have no idea what that guy's deal is honestly I wish he'd elaborate on stuff rather than just sperg out and try to get the thread deleted like the JP one, or the /sig/ one, or the first feminism one These probably weren't him but I see it happening to this thread and he was present in one of them since its pretty unfair to everyone else that a topic gets deleted because we have two spergs show up and get the mods scared/worried so they just delete the whole thing without warning, or lock it and then someone can make a new one to continue the conversation. I'm really erring on the side that this is someone who is genuinely malicious and is likely an outsider to imageboards in general. Since there are very few boards that wouldn't have eaten him alive or derezzed him permanently for that soykaf. For context I'm >>11210 in this conversation and the mods thankfully didn't bin the whole thread when I responded to him But I digress. >normalization of the demonization of the right wing I have to disagree with this, I think both sides have done a decent job whipping each other up as a boogeyman to get their voters energized during election time. As these demographic shifts are useless without participation and the newcomers are just as lazy as the natives. Media definitely does this, but in social circles amongst Conservatives the boogeyman tradition of what the left will do is more of orally passed along thing. Boomer's especially with vulgarity of the other side, but in younger generations with celebrity worship of people like Crowder or Ben Shapiro. One of the glaring media differences is that with this cycle there's a shift in the stand-up scene to accompany a new wave to the right or left at least in the United States on network tv and there's been none of that. It's been a Leftist ticket there for at least sixteen years probably longer. That isn't to say comedy hasn't moved to the right's wheelhouse, it has. But it much like the word-of-mouth oral culture for the boogeyman has taken itself to a more folksy level by relying on the internet for projection instead of the big networks. The demonization and fear mongering in the US is business as usual. But technology has definitely disrupted this cycle's course. >antifa I know these guys like to go after celebrities and people going into meatspace but they're just limp wristed glitterboys. I will say I like the invitation to violence they've made that's been an excellent case study of mine in observing how things like NLG come into play and the cowardice of police is on constant display.

>>11248 >each other up as a boogeyman to get their voters energized during election time Well, my viewpoint might influence me seeing the truth of it but as far as I have seen the left was virulently more vocal about how evil racists on the right are than the right has demonized the left. Surely, the right has talked about how stupid and laughable the left is acting but never (or sparingly) talked about how the left is "evil" in their goals. Namely the "open borders" and "nobody is illegal" things come to mind where the right just easily laughs at the left for their childish way of thinking but I don't think they ever see the left wing as demons or evil doers that want to soykaf up the country purposefully whilst the left sees the right as that all the time. >Crowder or Ben Shapiro Mostly making fun of or exemplifying the lefts "stupidity", not really showing them as demons to be honest. >The demonization and fear mongering in the US is business as usual. But technology has definitely disrupted this cycle's course. Oh that's what we can agree with. It's fuarrrking absurd how today people can't even talk about politics without getting angry or scared like fuarrrking animals. >but they're just limp wristed glitterboys Oh, it is about normalization that worries me, not what they're able to do. All real clashes I saw between them and any other right winger that held their ground usually pummeled them to the ground because antifa don't even go to gym. >and the cowardice of police is on constant display Not really cowardice but they've been shocked and simply blitzed to freeze response. All their "training" fell flat in lets say charlotsville. Even when they want to intervene their politically connected supervisors tell them no, either out of fear of riot getting more angry or because their political goals. Either way I don't really see police as the issue, they're just a muscle that is used whenever needed and in last years they weren't needed as much so the muscle kinda atrophied. I blame the head of the nervous system that exercises that muscle.

>>11249 >but I don't think they ever see the left wing as demons or evil doers that want to soykaf up the country purposefully whilst the left sees the right as that all the time. Evangelicals during Kang Nigger's tenure in office would disagree, which is where I was exposed to it. They see the democrats as Satan's lieutenants here on Earth and can not for a second tolerate them in office. It was just something you had to be around, but their fearmongering stems from the atheistic apathy the Democrats display while the Democrats fearmonger over the lingering Nativism of the Republicans. Both of these causes energize their groups to go out and vote even though the Republicans hate what energizes their base and it plays on the very sore nerves of culture, race, religion, and ideology. >Oh, it is about normalization that worries me, not what they're able to do. All real clashes I saw between them and any other right winger that held their ground usually pummeled them to the ground because antifa don't even go to gym. They're protected from legal repercussions, that's what's dangerous about them. Not their rhetoric, not their street fighting skills, their immunity to the law is what's dangerous. They can harass you in whatever way they want and you have no recourse to resolve the issue short of killing them and going to jail. These people are protected if they show up to your house in the middle of the night with a gun and terrorize you in your home. The only thing stopping them from utilizing this to its full potential is that they are tremendous glitterboys who require others to make a move with them. They never fight on their own, they require others, and most right-wing types are aggressive and take a few steps towards protecting themselves in what they're doing - hyenas vs the lion. Not all, but most. And if it wasn't for how gay they are, they'd be an actual threat instead of a bunch of dweebs running around slapping guys in khakis. >All their "training" fell flat in lets say charlotsville. Even when they want to intervene their politically connected supervisors tell them no, Their politically connected supervisors tell them no because the National Lawyer's Guild will eat them alive. It's dereliction of duty and it's still an act of cowardice. If the police are afraid to handle someone because they've got a legal connection, then that person is now officially above the law. It is a clear sign to others to escalate the ROE. Which bringing it back to Tarrant, means that the only way forward is violence. >It's fuarrrking absurd how today people can't even talk about politics Most people, and I don't think myself above it only want to discuss what they care about. If you tell some "bring the boys home" guy that to do that means abandoning Israel to repercussions of their actions, they'll be morally flabbergasted or in denial. Myself I can't really stand to talk to people who are in places I was since I know what they're going to say. To be more than fair though, as most people just want their opinion repeated. As the differences become irreconcilable the only end to this is violence, there's no changing people's points of views or winning hearts and minds. Everyone who's been looking at the horizon knows where this is leading.

>>11256 >Evangelicals during Kang Nigger's tenure in office would disagree Didn't see it because I wasn't as political back then was actually more on Jon Stewart side but never actually contributed to politics or watched the senate but as you said it, the republicans kinda low ball their base while democrats just throw oil on the flames. >They're protected from legal repercussions, that's what's dangerous about them Not as much as what I seen by the cops but by what technocrats are doing in silicon valley and the media. Most cops are obviously right wingers and as you said it their actions are politicized so they can't intervene but whenever they do then they come down upon the antifa. The guys at twitter and facebook, the TV and whatever.... the people that control the culture (which is upstream of politics mind you) is what is going in wrong way, they normalize people who were in ISIS but you can't even say nothing against muslims (even when not using bad words). >The only thing stopping them from utilizing this to its full potential is that they are tremendous glitterboys who require others to make a move with them. They never fight on their own, they require others, and most right-wing types are aggressive and take a few steps towards protecting themselves in what they're doing - hyenas vs the lion Yea, that might be the reason why everyone, culturally and politically is "united" against the right whilst everyone on the right has no issues on having squabbles between themselves. The fracture points on the right wing aren't as severe as the left wing ones mainly because of this mentality. You made me remember this one old video about couple of left wingers that hated trump that threw rocks at store who had maga posters and what have you and when guy came out with rifle and pointed it at them they were simply laughing and saying "what would you do" whilst filming him. Couldn't find the video but it was absurd from both situations, but what fascinates me is that they are, just as you said, hyenas. Not acting alone or understanding the severity of the situations they put themselves in. Guy got a fine for threatening with rifle whilst they got nothing for damaging his property >Which bringing it back to Tarrant, means that the only way forward is violence. Immovable object vs unstoppable force. This cultural shift has to occur, and if it won't peacefully then it will happen violently on the streets. Shame how the left can't see that us wanting to talk to them is just our way of de-escalating the situation. >and I don't think myself above it only want to discuss what they care about Oh surely, we aren't talking about pro-life/pro-choice don't you hate how orwellian this pro-[everything] sounds? fuarrrk me or we aren't talking about the environment. Mind you I wish we all had time and effort to tackle all these issues but we simply don't. Our minds just can't hold few things in our working memory and we aren't that good at predicting the future. >they'll be morally flabbergasted or in denial Denial is most often the response, or simply as you said, they would act as if you're an antisemite just for not wanting to spend billions of dollars protecting other country. >Myself I can't really stand to talk to people who are in places I was since I know what they're going to say. It is always refreshing to talk to new viewpoints but I think you're in a sweet spot in terms of helping those that are "behind you" to get them to where you are now. Getting entrailed into echochambers or seeking that rush of getting new positions isn't a good thing but truth should be a goal. You might get angry at them because you heard and understood their positions a million times over for quite some time, but in their eyes that is the gospel that they came across just few weeks ago. >as most people just want their opinion repeated Oh come on, now you sound like a total cynic. Hope dies last tho :/ >As the differences become irreconcilable the only end to this is violence, there's no changing people's points of views or winning hearts and minds. Everyone who's been looking at the horizon knows where this is leading. I mean, there's an element of self fulfilling prophecy in there for sure, but look at it in the long run. The system has been gettin better and better for better or for worse at squashing these violent tendencies. Surely I see it as worse because the systems ways are just either release valve and violent pushdowns for sake of protecting the system of course. But when the system is non-defeatable I think that it will surely go in favor of helping EVERYONE find their place and help the system go their way. The problem is that the system has made some really debatable turns into the wrong direction for sake of economic growth and self sustainability of the system something that could have easily been avoided few dozen years back with good enough foresight something unfortunately we don't have

>>11235 >The argument isn't that they don't exist at the moment, but that with the course of way of things that they will cease to exist in the near future. And see, there's the rip. All alt-right ideology is based on Social Darwinism, which is fundamentally wrong because it equates race and culture. Demographic change is real, cultural change -- to the degree those on the alt-right assume -- is not. Whoop-de-fuarrrking-doo "Western" countries now eat kebabs and a handful of loanwords come into usage, so much for the existence of the white race. I'm not going to address the rest of your points, because they're ridiculously wrong and/or don't deserve or require rebuttal.

>>11259 >alt-right ideology How new are you? Why are you posting in these places? Who invited you? I haven't seen an advocate of the Alt-Right on Lainchan ever, the Far-Right yes; we pop in now and again, but no one likes the alt-right. >fundamentally wrong because it equates race and culture No, the view is that culture is upstream from race. A healthy race will produce a good culture because they're biologically pre-disposed to it. >Demographic change is real, cultural change -- to the degree those on the alt-right assume -- is not. The demographics bring with them a changed culture, its not an assumption, its a fact. Demographic change at the very least changes culture and standards of living and almost always changing at least the ethnicity of the people living there if not the race. >"Western" countries now eat kebabs and a handful of loanwords come into usage, so much for the existence of the white race. No, their way of life is changed and extinguished as are the genetic stock and phenotype of the people themselves. Islam itself has produced very few great thinkers. All of the great mathematicians and scientists of Islam's Golden Age were converts from Iranian and Greek stocks. And the height of the Islamic world when drawn is of the Andalusian and Persian parts not of the Levant or Egypt. The areas where it is most Arabic. The heights of Islam were in the Ottoman Empire, Persia, the Mughal Empire, and Andalusia. The periphery who had access to slaves or long traditions that were trapped within only thinking inside the box of Islam,. but a pool of people to exhaust who didn't. >I'm not going to address the rest of your points, because they're ridiculously wrong and/or don't deserve or require rebuttal. This isn't youtube or twitter where you can just squawk your opinion at someone and get pats on the back for telling them off. Stop acting malicious.

>>11259 >Demographic change is real, cultural change -- to the degree those [who disagree with me] assume -- is not. What's your basis for thinking that? People don't magically transform their values and lifestyle the moment they cross a geographic border. See Pakistani immigrants (>>11184 >>11185) even after generations in the UK they are still live by by their ancient rape culture. >Whoop-de-fuarrrking-doo "Western" countries now eat kebabs and a handful of loanwords come into usage Nobody said that. All through this thread people have talked about the explosion in violent crime and social/ideological intolerance that specifically Muslim immigrants bring with them. At least make an effort to argue in good faith instead of replacing real arguments with strawmen. >>11266 I believe in this context "Alt-Right" is just "anyone who doesn't have the correct opinions about stuff".

>>11266 > I haven't seen an advocate of the Alt-Right on Lainchan Yes you have, you're just trying to distance yourself from the people who dress like this in public.

>>11269 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

>>11266 >A healthy race will produce a good culture because they're biologically pre-disposed to it. What alleles result in the "good culture" offspring?

"Be careful how you choose your enemy, for you will come to resemble him. The moment you adapt your enemy's methods your enemy has won. The rest is suffering and historical opera." When did men on top of slaughtered women and children become the mark of a hero? I have never read a poem or listened to a song celebrating such things. So when did these things become noble goals for a European? Did we fall from grace? Or did it only take a few poor men to show us our true hypocrisy? We have already failed to protect the innocent from darkness, and our own hate within our bones, ever hungry, can never be sated. Problems of our own creation are placed upon those who have nothing. The European, strong and noble, falls so easily. Or maybe that is the only way propaganda can convince us to slaughter others. Fearing the world you do not know does not make you strong. Like a scared dog soykafting itself we cry and lash out with no thought of what comes next. So strong we feel right now, reveling in the work of a man killing the innocent. Yet remember one thing as you celebrate this man now. Remember to celebrate him again the next time tens, or hundreds, or thousands die because of what he did. Shout his name, when your sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers, are blown away by the hate you celebrate. Play his video again and again, and you may forget they are gone. Pray to him, and he may sooth your heart. Slay and enact revenge, and you may find fulfillment. But I assume no such thing will happen.

>>11274 genetics doesn't even map to race. there are so many markers and traits that we have no understanding of whatsoever. the human genome diversity project only studied 51 different populations. we lack the resolution to be able to accurately try to correlate this stuff. my view is to say screw it all, mix everything. the path is grey.

>>11266 Culture is based on geography, how you have access to food, ability to domesticate animals, access to resources, not on race.

>>11275 >Fearing the world you do not know does not make you strong. Like a scared dog soykafting itself we cry and lash out with no thought of what comes next. This is a recurring rhetoric from the Left, equating hate to ignorance. You want to be smart don't you? Then don't resist. Good little sheep. >>11281 >Culture is based on geography, how you have access to food, ability to domesticate animals, access to resources, not on race. For the first generation straight out of a test tube yes. But the effects of evolution and genetics on a population accumulate over time. We're 40.000 years into that process, it is WAY too late to say "we're all the same because we're all human the only difference is where we live".

>>11282 We're 40,000 days into the process of being able to instantaneously communicate with people around the globe. It's WAY too early to say "we're too different".

>>11273 You haven't been here long enough to remember that one guy constantly starting threads with crudely drawn cartoons lampooning what he probably thinks are "leftists" or that other guy who hijacked every thread on on any subject to cry about how feminists had taken everything from him, including his god given right to f_ck 13 year olds. Maybe they haven't been around lately.

>>11285 >process of being able to instantaneously communicate with people around the globe And yet you're in your own bubble of information and culture, never going out of it to try and argue your own worldview in order to change it or to change someones elses. Like most other people, you fear change and is purely egoistical. All your friends are just like you, more or same. All your information comes from sources that you idolize that you want to become like (perfect image of yourself that you idolize and strive towards). "Just" 40,000 ? You saw internet of before and internet of now, we have only went deeper into our bubbles, segregated by circles of opinion, of culture, of informational input. Main point of ITT is that culture is created by the genetics and environment we are encircled with, and different types of people (with different genes) create different cultures based on their environments. Culture isn't top down but bottom up topology with genes under it and physiological interactions with environment under it (whether it be digital or biological). Surely, top down can create some changes, but that is rather slow and argeous process (best examples are genes that allow us to digest cow milk which came to being only recently in our history and only in few haplogroups did it occur). Being different is nothing to be ashamed of and it doesn't necessarily imply superiority battle. We are in new era where complementary help and building is necessary for stable future without WW3 or Earth getting destroyed by global warming. We can't and won't ever all be the same. Woman, man. Indian or Eskimo. Celebrate those diversities, don't try to mash them all together in one multicultural place.

>>11288 >And yet you're in your own bubble of information and culture, never going out of it to try and argue your own worldview in order to change it or to change someones elses. Like most other people, you fear change and is purely egoistical. All your friends are just like you, more or same. All your information comes from sources that you idolize that you want to become like (perfect image of yourself that you idolize and strive towards). lul ya u rite Lots of projection and assumptions happening based on two sentences. > culture is created by the genetics This keeps being asserted, but I have yet to see anything backing it up. Genetics aren't something you can change, culture is, and much more rapidly than genetic change. You see shifts of cultural norms happen in less than a single generation. You say it's a "slow and argeous [assuming you mean 'arduous'] process", but that's just demonstrably false. >Being different is nothing to be ashamed of and it doesn't necessarily imply superiority battle. We are in new era where complementary help and building is necessary for stable future without WW3 or Earth getting destroyed by global warming. We can't and won't ever all be the same. Woman, man. Indian or Eskimo. Celebrate those diversities, don't try to mash them all together in one multicultural place. This I agree mostly agree with. However, some culture _deserves_ to be extinguished for the greater good of humanity. I don't see anyone arguing for bringing back the once popular cultural practices of ritual child sacrifice. Remember that it is a part of human history, yes, but don't fuarrrking celebrate it, and certainly don't fuarrrking tolerate it in our evolution of what it means to be human.

>>11285 >We're 40,000 days into the process of being able to instantaneously communicate with people around the globe. It's WAY too early to say "we're too different". How does that undo 40.000 years of natural selection? It doesn't >>11287 You haven't been here long enough to read the fuarrrking rules. >>11288 >Being different is nothing to be ashamed of and it doesn't necessarily imply superiority battle. We see this with every Race vs IQ thread we've ever had on /r/ and /hum/. e.g. >>>/hum/11599 For some reason "we're all different and that's fine" just doesn't compute with Leftists.

>>11293 >Lots of projection and assumptions happening based on two sentences. He said "you" but I think it equally applies to most internet users. The modern web doesn't connect us so much as divide us into little ideological bubbles. That's why threads like this where people are forced to interact with people from other bubbles are so confusing and horrifying to many people. >This keeps being asserted, but I have yet to see anything backing it up >>11288 already gave you a subtle example with lactose. Here's another example, black single parents. Mothers neglect sons when they are malnourished (genetic) and sons who survive to maturity are incapable of supporting their family (cultural) which leaves more malnourished mothers and the cycle continues. Scale up and you get the present day cultural epidemic of single parent black families with genetic causes. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12110-008-9044-2 => Culture has a genetic component.

>>11294 >How does that undo 40.000 years of natural selection? It doesn't Only to an extent. The scientific advancements brought about in the last 100 years has significantly nerfed Darwinism. People that wouldn't have lived past birth are now reproducing regularly. Being able to fly around the world and produce offspring from two vastly different genetic backgrounds is turning all of that localized breeding on its head.

>>11296 >The scientific advancements brought about in the last 100 years has significantly nerfed Darwinism Things will change but the speed of evolution is still constant. You don't undo 40.000 years of evolution with 100 years of more evolution in a different environment. Things won't necessarily change the way you want it to or for the better either. Mixing 70 IQ Africans with 100 IQ Europeans gives you something in the middle. For Leftists that's fine, everyone being equally dumb and equally poor is good because then we're all equal. But people on the Right have different values, they want everyone to be the best they can be and accept inequality as inevitable. I think this fundamental difference in perspective is part of what fuels these immigration debates. For Lefties, the most virtuous thing to do is open borders and let underprivileged peoples take advantage of our surplus wealth. For people on the Right, the most virtuous thing to do is close the borders and insulate the people who have potential to do great things from animals who will rape them on the street for eating bacon and not wearing a headscarf. People complain that threads like this don't change anyone's minds but if we can at least understand different perspectives better then that's still a positive thing.

>>11293 >Lots of projection and assumptions happening based on two sentences You read what you want to read and I say what I want to say. Ego can only protect itself by either outward hostility or removing yourself from the situation entirely. I said what is truth, even if not for you. >>> culture is created by the genetics >but that's just demonstrably false Misquoting me will get you nowhere. I said that culture is created by mix of genetics and environment. I said that genetics takes long time to change. Culture "shifts" but only in "new" ways of expressing already established genetic impulses and "genetic memory". It is all basically same thing with little bit of variations. >However, some culture _deserves_ to be extinguished for the greater good of humanity I don't believe in "humanity", but in different subspecies of humans. You can change the culture all you want, but some won't be as good as adapting to the modern norms you push on them. >I don't see anyone arguing for bringing back the once popular cultural practices of ritual child sacrifice See the "bubble" I keep telling you about? Culture you like and want doesn't allow you to see other cultures and other people. Now, what moral argument could you say against ritual child sacrifice that will persuade them of anything? The only argument you have is "my culture is better cuz we strongest" but that is just strongest wins argument. See, my argument is that we don't ought to impose our rules on anyone else. Let them figure out their own ways and place in this planet. If they want to join us build a better future? Fine, good. Don't and you want to stand in our way? We will smite you with all we got.

>>11293 >This keeps being asserted, but I have yet to see anything backing it up It's just an idea, floating around the ether. Don't have to get prissy and demand evidence right away, we're just talking here. But I want to ask you, where do you think culture came from? Ideas from few brilliant and influential men and women? What would you say when I would mention that those people are influential because they struck a cord with people around them? That their ideas propagated because everyone saw the benefits of them applied on not only local but global level and so they applied them on themselves? I mean, you would argue that the only difference between you and some savage cannibal on deserted island is the culture, and if you taught him that eating human meat is bad for him that he would stop, right? Now could you think of a less extreme modern world clash of ideas that people on daily basis have? Could we argue that there is genetic predisposition to certain way of thinking, certain ideas and emotions being more easily propagated among certain types of people? How do we go around testing for this? Well, two ways are possible, either genetically different people in same (exactly the same) controlled environment to see if they will grow up the different due to their genetic differences and the other is to have people of same genetics in totally different environments and see whether their different environments will have strong influence over their growth. Contextually we are talking about cultural environment and genetic memory in terms of certain information being more easily propagated among certain people, but this could be applied to anything really. First test is impractical due to HUGE amounts of micro managing the environment. Second test has already been done, but only through meta-analysis of twins separated at birth, and it is too small of sample size to make it conclusive. But I want to know what do you think? Where does the culture you live in come from? The Gods or the ether of unpredictability of electron in our neurons?

>>11299 > if we can at least understand different perspectives better then that's still a positive thing. No one including yourself is putting in even a minimal effort in this direction.

>>11275 >When did men on top of slaughtered women and children become the mark of a hero? I suspect people think he's a hero for standing up against a powerful enemy and making a difference. Not necessarily for the literal act of murdering unarmed people. >>11301 >I mean, you would argue that the only difference between you and some savage cannibal on deserted island is the culture, and if you taught him that eating human meat is bad for him that he would stop, right? A lot of it comes down to IQ as well. Or more specifically abstract thinking. One key difference between Africans and Europeans is winter. In Europe people needed to gather food and fuel and generally plan ahead or they died. But Africans hunted the same animals and picked the same food all year round, they never had a need to think more than a day ahead. Evolution in this environment not only crippled intelligence but also morality because the basis for any kind of morality is self awareness and understanding consequences. For example African languages have no word for rape. As a concept it simply does not exist in their cultures. If you're a women and a man wants to have sex then that's what's going to happen. So oh course the explosion of violent sex crimes in Europe coincides with mass immigration from Africa. This is not rocket science. But it is genetic. https://www.amren.com/news/2017/10/morality-racial-differences/ >>11314 >No one including yourself is putting in even a minimal effort in this direction. I know it's hard to make a rational argument when all the facts are against you. Instead of crying soy tears maybe try and learn something.

>>11318 >I suspect people think he's a hero for standing up against a powerful enemy and making a difference. ah yes, the powerful enemy of those random mosque-goers. Real hero.

>>11318 > all the facts are against you. See? I didn't even a state my position on the topic at hand but you're ready to assume you know it. This is proof that you're not interested in having a civilized discussion.

>>11321 >I didn't even a state my position on the topic at hand I think the passive aggressive comments and SAGESAGESAGE made you're position clear. >you're ready to assume you know it The only thing >>11318 assumed is that you don't have a rational argument to post. And you didn't post one. So he's not wrong is he?

>>11325 "Rational" means people agree with me right

>>11326 For you

>>11325 lol I barely said anything. Does sage hurt the feelings of alt-retards?

>>11300 >Now, what moral argument could you say against ritual child sacrifice that will persuade them of anything? Maybe that murder is wrong and that having empathy is probably a good idea? Perhaps they should be put on the altar to see how they feel about getting senselessly killed. What moral argument can they make _for_ ritual child sacrifice? >The only argument you have is "my culture is better cuz we strongest" but that is just strongest wins argument. What the soykaf are you talking about. >See, my argument is that we don't ought to impose our rules on anyone else. That's exactly what was being demonstrated with the ritual child sacrifice example.

>>11320 Doesn't work if you use the whole quote instead of chopping it up and removing the part that debunks your response before you even posted it. >I suspect people think he's a hero for standing up against a powerful enemy and making a difference. Not necessarily for the literal act of murdering unarmed people. Try again. >>11326 >"Rational" means people agree with me right No, rational means based on reason as opposed to emotion. If you don't agree with something and can't form a rational argument why then the reason is emotive and therefor void. >>11340 This is how every thread like this always turn out. Lefties try hard in the beginning, get their asses kicked by much smarter people then soykafpost in the hopes that mods will delete the thread. >>11341 >Maybe that murder is wrong and that having empathy is probably a good idea? Perhaps they should be put on the altar to see how they feel about getting senselessly killed. For one thing this only works if they have enough self awareness to appreciate empathy, which is possibly not the case if they're senselessly killing children in the first place. >What moral argument can they make _for_ ritual child sacrifice? The other thing is you're not working from the same premise. If the reason they sacrifice children is to please the sun god who will refrain from killing your entire tribe then ritual child sacrifice IS moral and endangering 100s of lives to save one life is immoral. I think the point >>11300 is trying to make though is that you can't talk your way out of this situation by explaining *your* moral framework to them. The problem is not that you are virtuous and they are ignorant. The problem is you are living in separate realities.

>>11346 > The problem is you are living in separate realities. that's literally not how reality works

>>11346 i am yet to see any smart people on imageboards in general

>>11346 >No, rational means based on reason as opposed to emotion. If you don't agree with something and can't form a rational argument why then the reason is emotive and therefor void. Theorem: no argument is rational Proof: every argument rests on some unprovable assumptions(axioms). Which assumptions we believe are true is an arbitrary choice that cannot be based in reason, therefore it is irrational. An argument based on irrational assumptions is irrational. QED.

>>11355 >that's literally not how reality works You're being too literal. Lookup reality tunnel. >>11357 0/10 try again kid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition

>>11356 >i am yet to see any smart people on imageboards in general The post you're responding to says *smarter* as in a relative state not an absolute one. Where we are now is what happens when the intelligence gap between two sides of a controversial discussion is too large. The inferior side gives up trying to respond to actual arguments and plays petty word games instead ( >>11320 >>11321 >>11326 >>11340 >>11355 >>11357 ). It's like when children suck at a game they end up creating their own little metagame instead to avoid facing their own failure.

>>11363 Not sure I see what point you're trying to make with reality tunnels. At the end of the day we still have an objective, observable, measurable shared reality.

>>11363 >fallacy of composition I made no such fallacy. Unless you mean to say that an argument can be rational but based on irrational assumptions, which is queer to me.

>>11364 people give up for a variety of reasons. For instance, they might decide it's not worth it to lecture at a brick wall.

>>11400 >"Rational" means people agree with me right >>11318 is basically asking you to post evidence and an informal explanation of the logical steps you took to get from the evidence to your conclusion. Usually your conclusion will be that someone else's evidence or reasoning is flawed in a specific way. That's how grown up discussions are supposed to work. >I made no such fallacy. You're saying a starting point has property X so everything after that point also has property X which is intuitive but not necessarily true (logical fallacy). In this case it's not just false it's ridiculous. Axioms are not rational therefor there is no such thing as rational argument. It's the same as saying trees are not furniture therefor there's no such thing as carpentry. Presumably this is just an extension of the troll in >>11326 and you're only pretending to be this stupid and I just got "pwned" for responding seriously.

This whole fuarrrking thread makes me feel like I've stumbled into an active manipulation campaign. https://cryptome.org/2012/07/gent-forum-spies.htm

>>11364 So which side is it that thinks it can silence opposition by throwing "fallacy" definitions off wikipedia at the other? Is that the high or low IQ side?

>>11413 >You're saying a starting point has property X so everything after that point also has property X which is intuitive but not necessarily true (logical fallacy). So you claim that an argument can have irrational priors but be rational? If I assume that the earth is 6,000 years old and then conclude(using 100% valid logical deduction from my priors) that carbon dating gives false values, have I made a rational argument? I don't think so. What makes that argument irrational but whatever other argument you want to talk about rational? Maybe your definition of "rational" is the problem here. >Axioms are not rational therefor there is no such thing as rational argument. It's the same as saying trees are not furniture therefor there's no such thing as carpentry. This would be true if "furniture-ness" was preserved by the relevant transformations. My argument is more "trees are wood, so any furniture you make out of trees is not made out of plastic".

>>11416 oh yeah, people are working very hard (particularly on imageboards) to rehabilitate this man's image. Now, I wonder who would profit from that...

>>11424 >Maybe your definition of "rational" is the problem here. Somebody's definition of "rational" is the problem. >If I assume that the earth is 6,000 years old and then conclude(using 100% valid logical deduction from my priors) that carbon dating gives false values, have I made a rational argument? Yes because your "100% valid logical deduction" is what makes it rational, not the input or output. >I don't think so. Presumably the reason you think this is not rational is because the answer is "wrong"? That would be confusing rationality with truth though. Or maybe you missed out a part in the story where you deliberately ignored stronger evidence which leads you to another conclusion but then "100% valid logical deduction" would be at issue because ignoring evidence is not very logical. >This would be true if "furniture-ness" was preserved by the relevant transformations Fallacy of composition. Whether it is or isn't, is something you need to prove independently. >>11417 >silence opposition by throwing "fallacy" definitions You realize this whole subthread is about getting you to make an argument not silence anyone. As it stands there is no "opposition" and >>11318 was the last serious post.

>>11427 > As it stands there is no "opposition" and >>11318 was the last serious post. Then let it die.

>>11364 >Where we are now is what happens when the intelligence gap between two sides of a controversial discussion is too large. Not necessarily. People who blindly follow the common narrative don't typically reason about it, all they know is it's the "Correct" thing to think and who cares why or even if it's true. People who consciously go against the common narrative are always justifying it to themselves and those around them so they have arguments ready to go. I think that's why you get this situation with one side saying "debate me debate me hurr hurr" and the other side saying "don't need to debate because you're "Wrong" derp derp"

So, it seems a copycat shooter gunned down a synagoge in San Diego but failed miserably. He couldn't even get his livestream running and only injured four people.

>>11428 literally begging people to stop posting in the Thread I Don't Like

All these white supremacist "heroes" should do the world a favor and give their favorite gun a much needed blowjob.

>>11465 >All these white supremacist "heroes" should do the world a favor and give their favorite gun a much needed blowjob. You mean all 2 of them? Don't let mass media distort your perception of reality.

>>11166 >le "I was one of them" >le "lemme tell you what I think they are" shiggy the diggy famalam, post discarded

>>11166 >This wasnt somebody in i dont know Israel or India who had a relative who got blown up by a Muslim suicide bomber. Its some dude who reads about these things and sees these things online and then gets annoyed at some lady in a Hijab being loud in public and somehow forces himself to have personal stake in the issue by equating his minor annoyances with terrorist attacks And then in Sri Lanka muslims killed hundreds more of christians in their terrorist attack. Nice how you fixate on this attack in "muh first world" you apologetic fuarrrkwad

>>11167 >"quality"

>>11465 Such brave comment *slow clap*

>>11427 >ignoring evidence is not very logical. "logical", assuming you mean logically valid because you throw out undefined terms all willy-nilly, in the strictest sense just means that the conclusion follows from the assumptions and the argument. It has nothing to do with anything external to the argument: either an argument is valid or it's not. >Whether it is or isn't, is something you need to prove independently. well, considering that you didn't even define rationality until you equated it with logical validity rather than soundness, I didn't think such a proof was possible. In any case: if you mean to say that something merely needs to be a logically valid argument to be rational, then emotion-based and faith-based arguments most certainly can be rational, so your original point is moot.

>>11466 in the US at least, white supremacists are responsible for dozens of murders every year. Nearly as much as post-911 Muslim terrorist attacks.

>>11468 >Nice how you fixate on this attack in "muh first world" you apologetic fuarrrkwad The post you're responding to was written before Sri Lanka. >"logical" ... has nothing to do with anything external to the argument The point is it's not your arbitrary choice to remove evidence from the argument. If you were aware of evidence that e.g. Earth is more than 6.000 years old and ignored it then the argument is not rational. If >>11424 is all there is then the argument was rational. You didn't answer the question. You think your strawman argument is irrational because it's "wrong", because you lied about the assumptions or something else? >In any case... Don't just gloss over the hard parts you can't answer.

>>11472 >in the US at least, white supremacists are responsible for dozens of murders every year. Nearly as much as post-911 Muslim terrorist attacks. In an overwhelmingly white country. With an insignificant Muslim population. Muslims still kill more. Is that really the point you want to make? Seems consistent with what >>11466 said: "white supremacy" is largely just a fiction perpetuated by mass media.

>>11474 >The post you're responding to was written before Sri Lanka. The point still stands. Fixating on white peoples sins is self loathing behaviour by the left, not the mention the whole "I am better than you" and "I know whats going on and how it is going on" mentality of intellectual elitism coming from the left when in fact they know jack soykaf. Most often than not they just lie to appear higher than thou. My reply has nothing to do with Sri Lanka you moron, it was a purely examplory mention to showcase the self loathing, higher than thou, "I know what's going on" when they don't, "I was one of you" mentality of the left. I could have mention any terrorist attack that happened before Tarrant, or even that "incident" that happened a day after New Zealand, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is this slimy know it all mentality coming from the left that is abhorent in every type of discussion, let alone fuarrrking already divisive political discussion. YOU ARE NOT PART OF SOLUTION BY ACTING LIKE KNOW IT ALL fuarrrkWADS, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM. Get that through your fuarrrking skull you dummie.

>>11478 To add on, I could have even mentioned the brutal killing of little girl that motivated Tarrant to do this terroristic attack and you would just shout it down as "justifying". It isn't about that. It is about your mentality that I am trying to showcase.

>>11472 Congress actually already did a study on this. The findings were used to try to push for cyber regulations. >While the September 11, 2001, attacks were perpetrated by foreign violent extremists, from September 12, 2001 through December 31, 2016, attacks by domestic or “homegrown” violent extremists in the United States resulted in 225 fatalities, according to the ECDB. Of these, 106 were killed by far right violent extremists in 62 separate incidents, and 119 were victims of radical Islamist violent extremists in 23 separate incidents. They basically called hate crimes "domestic terrorism." which means that attacking someone because of the color of his skin etc. makes you an automatic "terrorist" and not just a prejudiced criminal. >A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability. From section 802 of the Patriot Act: >A person engages in domestic terrorism if they do an act "dangerous to human life" that is a violation of the criminal laws of a state or the United States, if the act appears to be intended to: >(i) intimidate or coerce a civilian population; >(ii) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or >(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping. The law is so ambiguous that you could even loosely consider the actions of some black lives matter and ANTIFA members as "domestic terrorism." This also raises the question if peoples online post and history could be used to label someone a terrorist if he happened to be convicted of a crime. By that I mean in places where self defense is not a guarantee: >Anon sees a neighbor having a break in >Stops the break in with deadly force >Court gets a copy of his online posts >On facebook he said "watching some black people break in to a house 14/88 black people suck" >Anon's defending was now racially motivated excessive force >Anon is now a terrorist. The distinction also must be made that regular murder crimes i.e. black-on-black violence which are far larger numbers are not considered "terrorism" because they are often motivated by subjects other than "protected categories" of race, religion, gender, or disability. Rival gangs do not fall under protected categories, and they do not fit other terms of defined terrorism unless they try to coerce a population or government, or influence policy.

>>11481 It should also be noted that "Far Right" which encompasses a large number of political ideologies that have similar roots, is compared to "Islamic Extremists" which is only a select few groups with a shared ideology.

>>11482 Umbrella terms like "far right" exist only for control of narrative and fear mongering whilst "islamic extremists" pinpoint the issue so clearly that anyone trying to deny it's existance simply look like a delusional fool.

>>11481 >>11482 >>11483 What also needs to be taken into account is the population spread between these extremist groups committing the crimes. After quick googling: >Pew Research Center estimates that there were about 3.45 million Muslims of all ages living in the U.S. in 2017, and that Muslims made up about 1.1% of the total U.S. population. vs ~60% of the US population being classified as white So ~1% of the US population commits as many violent terror attacks as ~60% of the population.

>>11484 I wouldn't put it 60% vs 1% but a subset of both groups which is smaller percentage, but yea still there are more whites than muslims and yet they commit same amounts of terrorist attacks

>>11477 > "white supremacy" is largely just a fiction perpetuated by mass media. u fuarrrking wot m8 That's why I see this soykaf plastered around my home town. Because it's a fiction. fuarrrk. Off. This racist bullsoykaf targets my family, advocating for the literal genocide and mass deportation of people I know and love. These fuarrrks should count themselves fortunate to only be receiving an egg to the head.

>>11495 It is just the newest boogeyman lurking behind behind corner, like muslims in 2001, commies in the 1980s, and germans/japs before that. Without a direct target, they cannot sell a story. While there are genuine threats out there , every white person is not going to murder/deport your family. MSM however portrays it that way ("white men")

>>11495 Atomwaffen is fbi honeytrap and everybody fuarrrking knows it. Listen, just because someone put up a flier some few years ago doesn't mean that it's widespread or even mainstream. It is made such by pansies like you that get scared by idiots who think they're funny or interesting with their pathetic memes. You make them popular and mainstream with your fake outcry with "muh family ;_;"

>>11497 >It is made such by pansies like you that get scared by idiots who think they're funny or interesting with their pathetic memes. You make them popular and mainstream with your fake outcry with "muh family ;_;" > Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks.

It would not be unreasonable to consider white supremacists as much of a threat as Muslims. "race realists" and their ilk would have you believe that Muslims are a bigger threat, and that white supremacy "isn't real". It is really fuarrrking real. This man killed innocent people. There is no denying that. Say what you will about Islam, I think it's soykaf. But the appropriate response isn't to go killing random people. Go kill ISIS, go kill the Turkish and Syrian militaries, go kill the people spreading hateful soykaf online. You know the tactics used by ISIS recruiters and neo-nazis are exactly the same, right? They target young men who feel alienated and victimized, tell them they need to defend their culture from the bogeymen, and then you get crazed imbiciles shooting up churches and gay bars. Two sides of the same god damn coin. When people start saying "wellllll maybe they have a point" -- that's the way genocide starts. That's when you get ISIS and other forms of fascism. But of course, the fascists would love that. Stamp this soykaf out when you see it, before it starts a fire.

>>11502 >You know the tactics used by ISIS recruiters and neo-nazis are exactly the same, right? They target young men who feel alienated and victimized, tell them they need to defend their culture from the bogeymen, and then you get crazed imbiciles shooting up churches and gay bars. Two sides of the same god damn coin. This is a known phenomenon in law enforcement and military fields. Criminal psychologists have even demonstrated how holes in Maslow's hierarchy of needs can be exploited by street gangs to terrorists. >Stamp this soykaf out when you see it, before it starts a fire. This is not a good route to take, because when people try to "put an end to ______" they only end up alienating the group more. Breaking up the group and integrating them into a productive and multicultural society (that does not mean a forced mixed culture, but rather many cultures coexisting) will make the sentiments go away. Notice that muslims who work in western countries are well mannered, while people who self congregate with others in muslim ghettos start enforcing shariah law, just like how black street gangs or white supremacist groups will try to enforce no-go zones for their rivals? Combating extremist views is a matter of humanizing rival groups to one another, killing them only strengthens their resolve. The basis of "If you kill your enemies, they win" holds true for radical islamists who say that they cannot loose because they seek death, and in death they have won. People take pride in being martyrs, altruism is part of human evolution, but when the group you are martyring yourself for is corrupt, there is no inherent gain. If the conditions conducive to generating extremists simply went away, we would have many fewer killings. The problem is gangs and extremist groups provide food, shelter, and a sense of belonging for lost souls. We should be figuring out how to solve those problems first, then the militants would disappear (in the meantime, law enforcement simply has to fight fire with fire, which arguably makes the entire situation worse).

>>11502 >It would not be unreasonable to consider white supremacists as much of a threat as Muslims. You were just shown actual murder statistics proving otherwise. The whole point here is you *think* white supremacy is a much bigger problem than it actually is precisely because that's what the media is programming you to think. Everytime you respond with "yeah but I *feel* like white supremacy is a bigger problem" you are just proving that point. >Say what you will about Islam, I think it's soykaf. But the appropriate response isn't to go killing random people. Tarrant wanted Muslims to feel unwelcome and unsafe and discourage future immigrants. You should be able to see why he thought that shooting up a Mosque was a good way to achieve that. >You know the tactics used by ISIS recruiters and neo-nazis are exactly the same, right? Tarrant was not a neo-nazi. Also race realism is the belief that gaps in culture and wealth are biological and can't be fixed by social constructs. Neither have anything to do with this thread. It seems like you're using unrelated words interchangeably because in your ignorant brain they all just mean "Something Bad". >When people start saying "wellllll maybe they have a point" -- that's the way genocide starts. That's when you get ISIS and other forms of fascism. It's interesting that you don't consider what is happening now as fascism. Government blocking the "wrong" kind of websites, censoring the "wrong" kind of news", silencing the "wrong" kind of people. The way authoritarianism falls into place is by convincing you that there is a big imaginary threat and we need to do *anything* to stop it. Governments and corporations get away with literally anything as long as they use the right keyword, which at the moment is "white supremacy".

>>11495 >This racist bullsoykaf targets my family, advocating for mass deportation of people I know and love. Where does this entitlement and indignation come from? If you put more into your host country than you take out then why do you fear deportation anyone with a brain would love to have you. If you take more than you give then you should be fuarrrking grateful as long as it lasts. Either way nobody owes you the right to occupy their land. >These fuarrrks should count themselves fortunate to only be receiving an egg to the head. Responding to words with actual violence. As long as you call yourselves the ANTI-fascists then it's fine right.

>>11497 "fake outcry"? Maybe try using empathy and listening to people some time. >>11502 >You know the tactics used by ISIS recruiters and neo-nazis are exactly the same, right? They target young men who feel alienated and victimized, tell them they need to defend their culture from the bogeymen, and then you get crazed imbiciles shooting up churches and gay bars. Two sides of the same god damn coin. THANK YOU!! >>11520 >Where does this entitlement and indignation come from? If you put more into your host country than you take out then why do you fear deportation anyone with a brain would love to have you. If you take more than you give then you should be fuarrrking grateful as long as it lasts. Either way nobody owes you the right to occupy their land. This has nothing to do with "host country". I'm talking about native citizens who were born here, but aren't white, so they don't "belong" according tho these fuarrrks. It's called "white nationalism" for a reason. You believe these people are far more reasonable than they are in reality. >Responding to words with actual violence. As long as you call yourselves the ANTI-fascists then it's fine right. When your words are calling for mass violence and genocide, then yeah. Clean the fuarrrking egg off your head and re-evaluate your life.

>>11540 >trying to bait simpathy with fake outrage online over some soykafty dumb posters is realistic way to react and not overly dramatic childlike reaction >>>"YOU'RE JUST UNEMPATHETIC PERSON" k lol

>>11540 >Maybe try using empathy and listening to people some time. >You believe these people are far more reasonable than they are in reality. You might want to take your own advice there, buddy. >When your words are calling for mass violence and genocide, then yeah. Clean the fuarrrking egg off your head and re-evaluate your life. You realize that someone who is serious about "mass violence and genocide" wouldn't actually let you throw an egg at him even if you did have the balls to try.

>>11540 >This has nothing to do with "host country". I'm talking about native citizens who were born here, but aren't white, so they don't "belong" according tho these fuarrrks. I think you're missing the point. The philosophical foundation of nationalism is that a person's ancestors are the ones who built and maintained the nation going back several generations and that's the reason the person "belongs". If these "native citizens" you're talking about are Pakis imported by Labour to get easy votes and roam the streets in rape gangs, mutate the genitals of their daughters and enact Sharia law in their little ghettos then it's understandable that some actual natives want them to get the fuarrrk out.

>>11541 > fake outcry > fake outage > fake You keep using that word. >>11542 > You might want to take your own advice there, buddy. Show me a reasonable explanation that justifies preaching genocide. You can't, because it all boils down to dystopian "pre-crime" bootlicking. >>11543 > The philosophical foundation of nationalism is that a person's ancestors are the ones who built and maintained the nation going back several generations and that's the reason the person "belongs". This is pure fuarrrking gold coming from a limey. They were the worst imperialists of all. I'm talking about blacks in the US who come from families that have been here for generations.

>>11548 >you keep using that word Because normal angry people don't go online and just bash their keyboards. "GRRR if they were in front of me" Maybe kids? Maybe manchildren? You have to really fake some anger to just go "I am so angry grrr, look at this"? No, hell no. It's playful angriness where you know you can easily win if you throw a fit, if you fake a tantrum. If white supremacists were any serious threat you wouldn't fuarrrking dare to say anything. You know nobody would go against what you're saying if you would say that. It's like a blow up fight doll if you ask me.

>>11549 >If white supremacists were any serious threat you wouldn't fuarrrking dare to say anything. To add, if you THOUGHT they were a serious threat you wouldn't dare to say it. And you don't buy the bullsoykaf you are trying to sell here, let's be honest to each other. You aren't as brave as you think you are.

>>11549 >>11550 You act as though you can only act in one way. Post on a thread about the discussion OR punch a nazi in the face. The Venn diagram of the people engaging in those behaviors certainly never converges, oh no. >if you THOUGHT they were a serious threat you wouldn't dare say it. What the actual fuarrrk is this even supposed to mean? If someone sees a threat they're going to stay silent?

>>11551 >>11551 >Post on a thread about the discussion OR punch a nazi in the face Not at all, those are the two options you could have thought of, and they are right up your valley in way you think. >The Venn diagram of the people engaging in those behaviors certainly never converges, oh no. It doesn't actually. If you are ready to "punch nazis" then you aren't really ready to debate with possible nazi online, are you? People that get violent like that are already too far gone to have a reasonable discussion on nazi topic right of their viewpoint. So, as far as you would like to act smug and condescending as natural lefty it doesn't really fit and you're just looking like you're having a spasm of impulses rather than thinking about what you're saying before you do. >What the actual fuarrrk is this even supposed to mean? If someone sees a threat they're going to stay silent? It means that you don't think of nazis as serious threat. You see them as a minor threat that they are. Maybe you deluded yourself that they might be "on the rise" but they aren't as serious threat atm as you would want them to be. That is why you actively seek for them everywhere you look. That is why you go to "debate them" online what you're actually doing is just having emotional one liner responses to what they're saying and calling it a position when in actuality you're nothing more than a Pavlovian dog As I said before, you fake an outrage to get sympathy and some good boi points from everyone.

>>11559 > to have a reasonable discussion on nazi topic right of their viewpoint. why the fuarrrk would i want to do that? (different person) i'd like to point out that this whole thread is at that point when it's really not about anything it originally was, right now you two just throw insults of character at each other and call it a debate.

>>11548 >Show me a reasonable explanation that justifies preaching genocide Who said anything about genocide? You want more empathy and less ignorance yet you treat everyone who disagrees with you as non-humans to project all the evils of the world onto. Take your own advice and maybe try using empathy and listening to people some time. >I'm talking about blacks in the US who come from families that have been here for generations. What are you doing then? This thread is about Islam. As a piece of general advice though, stop focusing on skin color and focus on their general inability to function in any civilized society (anywhere) and you might understand better why they are not wanted. >>11551 >You act as though you can only act in one way. Post on a thread about the discussion OR punch a nazi in the face. I think the point being raised is the fact that your bitchass isn't in hospital is proof that the person you punched wasn't actually that dangerous or violent. He was just a guy who said somethings you don't agree with and you couldn't deal with that for some reason.

>>11566 > why the fuarrrk would i want to do that? Hey Joe? Would you have a civil conversation with a Japanese Imperial? The Victors write the History and demonize their enemies to legitimize their own brutality. All historians know this is true. However, if you suggest that this is also the case for WWII, then everyone looses their fuarrrking minds. I'm not a Nazi, but what most people believe about WWII is chock full of propaganda and falsehoods that they can't form a rational world view. WWII events are still being used to manipulate the minds of the masses, so much so it's illegal to question the narrative in some places. Meanwhile, it's no secret GCHQ ran a "black propaganda" campaign in WWII, claiming it helped win the war. How else would you get Americans of German descent to kill their own extended family in a foreign war? They'd have to be portrayed as evil incarnate. The Japanese were portrayed just as evil as the Nazis, but they're not vilified nearly as much because there were no relatives of Jewish banking elites living in Japan... Japanese media is still primarily under the thumb of the western propagandists who implemented the GCHQ War Guilt Information Program - to shame, emasculate and demoralize the Japanese. Japanese "cute culture" is a western PSYOP. All the anime shows western beauty standards and presents girls & bois with hair other than native Japanese black as most attractive... but rational discussions of propaganda and forced erasure of native culture for the sake of "diversity" that only benefits rich international bankers is off the table for anyone who firmly believes post-war propaganda to the point they're brainwashed into thinking that there's nothing wrong with "Punching a Nazi", just because they believe in a government that's an extension of your family... (that's NatSoc, AKA Nazi, BTW) Now, if you'll excuse me Joe, I've got some more white women to rape and westerners to hang and burn over here in glorious Imperial Nippon. (gimme a break)

>>11568 i don't know why you brought up japan but okay.

>>11570 It's to show the cognitive dissonance: > Nazis are ebil! > Japs are ebil for same reason! Wait, no they're not... huh. The post-war propaganda against Nazis continued in the west more strongly than Japanese Imperialism. Nazis were no more evil than the Japanese. You wouldn't shy away from talking to a Japanese Imperial, But you wouldn't want to have a conversation with a Nazi (even though most you know about them is post-war propaganda). That's crazy. Letting government indoctrination form your opinions about their enemies is kind of ridiculous. The same multi-cultural push has been going on in Japan by internationalist owned media outlets. In the west it has resulted in a flood of migrants. Nippon mostly noped out of the "migrant crisis", or else we'd be having the same kind of shooting events at immigrant strongholds.

because nobody is going around posting recruitment propaganda for japanese imperialism. god damn this isnt that hard to understand

>>11567 > Who said anything about genocide? Atomwaffen, Daily Stormer, you know, the groups whose posters that Lain showed earlier. Hahaha, man. Watching fascists dance try to dance around this soykaf is hilarious.

>>11571 >Nippon mostly noped out of the "migrant crisis" maybe that's why so many nazis, fascists, white supremacist love japan so much and don't mind moving there... hey, if that gets them out of here... > (even though most you know about them is post-war propaganda) which part? the one where they sent people to gas chambers? or their work camps? or the fact my people were the next? > Letting government indoctrination form your opinions about their enemies is kind of ridiculous. what are your independent sources? (and please don't say youtube) >Japanese Imperial one of those japanese imperialists that comitted war crimes? no, i wouldn't want to talk to one of them.

>>11575 >Atomwaffen, Daily Stormer, you know, the groups whose posters that Lain showed earlier. What I see is >1. "they can take out material possessions but not our spirit" style edgy/rebellious motivational poster. >2. cynical portrayal of modern life with implied comparison to the positive things Nazis achieved (called the Golden Age Fallacy by the way) >3. viva la revolution edgy/rebellious motivational poster. Nothing about genocide. Again, you accuse people of not listening but wtf are you doing? Anyway, we already established earlier that Tarrant was not a Neo Nazi and Neo Nazis generally regard Muslims as allies against the global Jewish "menace" so none of this is really relevant. This confusion is just down to ignorance on your part, you've been trained to hate on demand without actually understanding anything.

>>11495 >>11575 >there exist people who want genocide and also don't like immigrants >therefor everyone who doesn't like immigrants also wants genocide Is this seriously what you retards are saying?

>>11571 >>11579 People are dumb, they think they can theorize about anything while not knowing anything in the first place. Also, the moment people start to put nazis and Japanese people on the same plane you know something is wrong. Except if you consider that nazihistan is a country idk To sum it up, I don’t in what hell of a country do people here live but where I live, nobody gives a fuarrrk.

>>11579 and we're back to attacks on people's character

>>11577 >>11579 "What I see is" > blatant denial of reality.

>>11580 I mean, they were similar ideologies and shared a worldview, but they were very different in many ways, are people really arguing that they were the same?

>>11587 >If google says it'a true then it is automatically true Kek.

>>11589 >google rofl this thread has ultimately succumbed to the bullsoykaf asymmetry principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullsoykaf#Bullsoykaf_asymmetry_principle > hurr durr nazis aren't a threat it's really zee joos and mudslimes you need to watch out for something something white genocide tl;dr you should hate brown people cuz... uh... they're bad?

Mods please shut down this thread, it has devolved into nothing but a screaming match between people and nothing good is coming out of it, we haven't even been on topic for a long while.

>>11591 This thread has been locked for violating Rules 2, 3, Rule 4 and 5,6,7. And it was so close to its post limit and a natural death...., oh well. Do not call for mods, or announce reports in a thread. Always argue in good faith and avoid using personal attacks. You should always elaborate on your opinions rather than just spilling the soykaf. Don't respond with aggression to perceived flames or trolls (or at all.) Do not whine and cry about 8chan, lainchan.jp, "quality", "invasions", "new users", mods, bans, or kalyx outside of /q/. Do not spam or advertise unrelated content.