Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Tournaments   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to Off-topic Forum   

Posts 1 - 30 of 73   1  2  3  Next >>   
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 16:07:24


The Cruelest
Level 56
Report
I don't have an answer to the following questions so my mind is honestly open to change. Please share your perspective.

I don't believe that drone strikes create terrorists. There were terrorists long before drone strikes and there will still be terrorists after drone strikes. The US armed the proto-Al Qaeda with Stinger missiles and they still hated us. Some people just need to murder members of the outgroup (westerners) to maintain the ingroup. Drone strikes are completely justified as a form of self-defense.

However, I believe that PC and SJWs creates more violent alt-righers. Everytime a google engineer is fired for "promoting gender stereotypes" it fans the flames of the violent alt-right. IMO, if we destroyed political correctness and adopted an alt-right immigration policy then the alt-right would disappear.

These two views are contradictory. I want to appease the violent alt-right but regect appeasement of violent jihadis?

Does PC create more Nazis?

Do drone strikes create more terrorists?

discuss.

Edited 8/26/2017 16:07:41
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 16:45:17


Cata Cauda
Level 58
Report
Does PC create more Nazis?
The more extreme ones, like the people who demand *total* equality of all ethnic groups or (real) genders, yes. Because thats not achieveable.
Do drone strikes create more terrorists?
Only if you dont care about civilian casualities. Only strike when you are 100% sure you got only terrorists.

Edited 8/26/2017 16:46:57
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 16:47:18


ıʇnpp∀ ǝɥʇ ןǝssıℲ
Level 19
Report
On your title you have 'discussion on Islam', but you didn't say anything about Islam.
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 16:49:34


Cata Cauda
Level 58
Report
^
Political Correctness and drone strikes implies Islam. Since (unfortunately) far-rigth terrorists are not being drone striked.
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 16:52:52

كواش「カワシ」
Level 33
Report
Drone strikes in themselves don't create terrorists, but within this context they can. There are mistakes which lead to civilian casualties (similar to friendly-fire incidents in Afghanistan), but within this context this can fuel Al Qaida's message because it pushes the narrative of the US killing civilians. Technically, in itself drone strikes aren't really legal since they violate national borders, but they are also neccessary (many key figures have been eliminated from them, namely in Somalia and Pakistan).

Edited 8/26/2017 16:53:34
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 16:55:44


Japanball
Level 56
Report
"if we destroyed political correctness and adopted an alt-right immigration policy then the alt-right would disappear. "
That would fire up the SJWs, in turn firing up the alt-right
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 18:56:45


TeamGuns 
Level 59
Report
Drone strikes may be done in order to fight an evil, but they do unfortunately cause civilian deaths. When you kill civilians, even by mistake, Al Qaeda and ISIS use those deaths to paint a hateful image of America and the West. In a lot of those drone-bombed countries people hate the US in huge levels, mostly because of the drones. I also have the idea that drone strikes are fairly ineffective into killing terrorists, as they can easily hide in civilian areas or caves, thus limiting the strike power.

I suggest you watch the segment of John Oliver about drones, it's a very good explanatory video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs

What creates more nazis is primarily not SJWs or PC, these may radicalise them, but mostly what drives it is a nostalgia of the past in a context of weakeness (or perceived weakeness) of the actual position of a country or social group. Nazism is mostly positioned as a reactionary movement in opposition to conservativism and mostly liberalism. Conservatives want to conserve things the way they are, liberals want to change it to something new, and reactionaries want to go back to the past.

Therefore to me what created the alt-right and ressurgence of nazism in the West was the very strong social changes that happened in the last century: women's voting rights, feminism, the fight for equal racial rights, the ending of nation-states in favour of cosmopolitan countries, globalization, social equal rights, the replacement of government led policies to laissez-faire ones, And more recently LGBT rights, the arrival of immigrant waves, new fighting for equal racial rights and SJWs.

To me SJWs are just one part of the equation, a continuation of changes that fuel reactionary sentiments. As for PC, it was way stronger in the past. The nazi spike is also speeded up by free speech, ideas are able to travel fast and doctrines can be shared in the blink of an eye. If you had the same social context but with 80s or 90s technology, I doubt the Alt-Right would be so strong.
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 19:00:45


Leibstandarte (Vengeance)
Level 45
Report
No shitpost yet? Impressive. Although i probably will jinx it the moment i post this.
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 19:04:18


Leibstandarte (Vengeance)
Level 45
Report
Back to topic. I do believe PC and SJWs create more far-right people than anything. If all Immigration policies both in EU and USA took a more conservative and sane turn we could drop both terrorism and cultural strife.
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 19:06:17

(((Tabby Juggernaut)))
Level 53
Report
^I agree. What people need right now is compromise among all people with legitimate ideas and interests. Then we can deal with pathologies.

Edited 8/26/2017 19:06:58
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 19:08:52


Japanball
Level 56
Report
If UK increases restrictions on African immigration but decreases restrictions on East Asian immigration, that would be good.
- downvoted post by (((Tabby Juggernaut)))
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 19:11:51


Leibstandarte (Vengeance)
Level 45
Report
^ First shitpost. Sorry tabs but it's true.
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 19:13:16

(((Tabby Juggernaut)))
Level 53
Report
^You mean..I'm right? :-)

Yep.

The ancestors of humans were in Sub-Saharan Africa. Hence everybody should be entitled to enter and settle there. Every human is entitled to a piece of Africa.

Edited 8/26/2017 19:17:48
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 20:29:44


OxTheAutist 
Level 58
Report
if we destroyed political correctness and adopted an alt-right immigration policy then the alt-right would disappear.
Not really getting this part. That's like saying "if we adopted a communist economic policy, then the communists would disappear". I think it only strengthens them, since it gives into some of their demands. They'd want to advance their agenda if they realise they can get part of it.
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/26/2017 21:55:53


OnlyThePie
Level 53
Report
For once, I actually agree with the majority. SJW's and the Alt-Right feed off eachother, and both are disgusting groups. However, I dont think encouraging one or the other will fix things. They need to both be told "you're going to too far, we aren't going to do what you say" and then ignore them. Attention is what they want.

In terms of Drones, I also agree, there have been terrorists since long before Drones. The issues in the Middle East will not be solved simply.
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 00:31:55


Padraig
Level 34
Report
On the 25th of August in the New York Times, Timothy Egan had an article published entitled What if Steve Bannon is Right?

For Egan the central matter is an assertion made by Bannon.

The longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em,” he said of Democrats. “I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.


How does Egan respond? In part by making the following assertion regarding Trump voters.

It’s too easy to write all these people off as racists, for that’s exactly what Bannon is counting on. Yes, there’s a genuine hate-cohort in the Republican Party — neo-Nazis, or “clowns and losers,” in Bannon’s terms — of about 10 percent, which is horrifyingly high.

But there are many more voters in Trump’s camp who still consider themselves Democrats. Some live in the much-discussed zone of despair, places where opportunities for people without a college degree are few, and the opioid epidemic rages. These folks are persuadable, if the message is economic hope — something that Obama understood, and Hillary Clinton never did.


My own reaction is that both Egan and Bannon are correct. If the Democratic Party thinks that they can gain traction running on the one issue of identity politics, while at the same time abandoning the New Deal politics that allowed the Democratic party to control U.S. politics for the better part of a half century, it is a mistake. The changing demographics of the U.S. are not going to reverse the Trump victory.

The Democrats think they can ice skate to victory. They think that Trump's asinine behavior will hand them success. If they continue to act on these misguided notions they will continue to loose.

However while the SJWs, and Democrats who echo their sentiments, are giving aid to the Alt-right, they can't claim responsibility for people who march with torches while chanting, "The Jews will not replace us!"
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 01:19:17


The Cruelest
Level 56
Report
Not really getting this part. That's like saying "if we adopted a communist economic policy, then the communists would disappear". I think it only strengthens them, since it gives into some of their demands. They'd want to advance their agenda if they realise they can get part of it.


This is ridiculus. You are saying that whatever neo-nazis demand we must refuse just to spite them, even if it harms our nations. So when they chant "White Lives Matter" your response is "No. White lives don't matter." And when they chant "Jews will not replace us." Your response is "I want you all replaced with Jews."

Not everything the neo-nazis say is wrong. I don't believe that Jews will replace us. I also believe that white lives matter, that all lives matter.

What you are doing instead is choosing the most radical and dangerous position just to slap them. This won't work. It feeds into their propaganda that you are radical and dangerous and want to exterminate the white race.

The problem is that you have centered your morality based on "Whatever the neo-nazis say is wrong." What if they advocate for abortion because it reduces the numbers of blacks? Will you become pro-life because "Being pro-choice is appeasing neo-nazis!" ? That is just stupid. You need to take an honest look at their positions and find a few that you can advocate for.

Edited 8/27/2017 01:20:11
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 01:21:23

(((Tabby Juggernaut)))
Level 53
Report
^Why do you oppose National Socialists? There is one thing I disagree with them though. I like Jews.

Edited 8/27/2017 01:22:49
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 01:23:03


OnlyThePie
Level 53
Report
Because Nazis are evil? They actively tried to exterminate roughly a quarter of all human life on earth
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 01:24:37

(((Tabby Juggernaut)))
Level 53
Report
^This time Jews and Slavs won't be possible to exterminate. They have nukes and Israel is trying to make some biological weapons that can target ethnic groups. I mean you can still try but that will end up exterminating your group as well.

In this cruel and inhumane world whatever group capable of exterminating others has saved themselves from extermination as long as they aren't mad enough to attempt to exterminate others who can exterminate them.

In this cruel struggle for continued existence Jews have won not because of sentiments of the Gentiles but because of Jewish intelligence and hard work. Antisemitism? It has not worked. The Jewish cat has tramped on antisemitic dogs and prevailed because of intelligence of the cat, not sentimentalism of humans.

No, my philosophy isn't "kill or be killed". Instead it is "every good group should strive to be able to kill others without actually killing others so that others don't dare to kill them".

Civilized peoples, this is for us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgM4auRw2Tc

Edited 8/27/2017 01:37:23
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 01:48:49


The Cruelest
Level 56
Report
I suggest you watch the segment of John Oliver about drones


John Oliver's sources in that video:
Iranian news, NBC, New York Times, CNN

Yeah, I don't take John Oliver seriously anymore. He only shows one side of the story and ignores any other perspectives. He obviously sights many left wing news sights. When was the last time he sighted the Wall Street Journal, Fox, Brietbart, or anything remotely center-right and took the source seriously? John Oliver is propaganda with a coat of British paint that makes him sound smart/authentic.

Therefore to me what created the alt-right and resurgence of nazism in the West was the very strong social changes that happened in the last century: women's voting rights, feminism, the fight for equal racial rights, the ending of nation-states in favour of cosmopolitan countries, globalization, social equal rights, the replacement of government led policies to laissez-faire ones, And more recently LGBT rights, the arrival of immigrant waves, new fighting for equal racial rights and SJWs.

To me SJWs are just one part of the equation, a continuation of changes that fuel reactionary sentiments. As for PC, it was way stronger in the past. The nazi spike is also speeded up by free speech, ideas are able to travel fast and doctrines can be shared in the blink of an eye. If you had the same social context but with 80s or 90s technology, I doubt the Alt-Right would be so strong.


I am not familiar with French politics but I know that Front National was long-ago nazi-sympathetic and a response to many of the things you have mentioned. I don't think Front National has anything to do with the alt-right nowadays though.

From what I know of the alt-right they support LGBT rights just to spite Muslims, support second wave feminism but not third, and support equal rights of all races. However, they believe that the only way to ensure equal rights for blacks is to have a black dominated country and vice versa for whites. There is some truth in this.

IMO you have
1. incorrectly identified the policies of the alt-right
2. incorrectly identified the causes of the alt-right
3. marginalized the role that antifa and the SJWs played in growing the alt-right.

You are probably correct when regarding the alt-right in France. I just don't think these are the same causes in America. Thanks for educating me a little on French politics, though.

On principle, I refuse the ideal that free-speech makes the alt-right more popular. The alt-right was irrelevant until Antifa started telling us that we can't hear them speak on college campuses or that it was ok to punch Richard Spencer to shut him up.

Whenever, you limit the supply of something it becomes more sought after. This applies to information on the internet and the alt-right. I do appreciate your perspective and I will add globalization and the internet onto the list of things that has spread the alt-right.
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 01:52:59

(((Tabby Juggernaut)))
Level 53
Report
^I don't support equal rights at all. Rights are earned, not given.
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 01:58:06


The Cruelest
Level 56
Report
^Why do you oppose National Socialists? There is one thing I disagree with them though. I like Jews.


My thoughts on National Socialism

1. It works, perhaps better than capitalism. Capitalism has a tendency to create monopolies which take government intervention to break up. I don't have a problem with the boom/bust cycle though.

2. The anti-antisemitism is troubling. I am not Jewish but I respect Jewish accomplishments and I hope that the white race can rise once again to Jewish levels of awesome.

3. National Socialism takes different forms in each nation. In Poland, it is patriotic to be Catholic and Capitalist, in Russia it is patriotic to be Orthodoxy and Communist, and in Sweden it is patriotic to be neutral and hate your own country. National Socialism does not unify the white race but divides it along irrelevant historical lines.

EDIT: I apologize I can't get to all your responses tonight. I like Cata's response the best. goodnight.

Edited 8/27/2017 02:02:32
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 02:00:38

(((Tabby Juggernaut)))
Level 53
Report
^My take on NS completely disregards its socialism. I'm not a socialist.

Antisemitism is stupid and the white race should be united. Whites are probably less diverse than China and there are still so many ethnic groups.

My real ideology is human biodiversity. Let all good groups have their own nice homelands and be good. :-) I don't just want one of Berlin, Tokyo and Jerusalem to stand. Instead I want all three to stand together with Damascus, Constantinople/Istanbul, Dehli and Moscow. Let civilization rule and peafowlism disappear.

However entrance to the club of the civilized is only open to those who seek it. Groups corrupted by too much peafowlism should be barred from the club unless they can fix their behaviors.

Edited 8/27/2017 02:06:22
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 02:32:27


OxTheAutist 
Level 58
Report
cruelest, chill out bro. I was merely challenging your idea that giving people power makes them shut up. you went on some tirade about how I think white lives don't matter or some shit.

just wondering, are you okay?
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 03:25:19

TabbyCat
Level 7
Report
Meow!
Heil Katzen!
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 14:28:20


The Cruelest
Level 56
Report
@Ox Ok. I am just wondering what the limiting principle is.

@Tabby I agree, so long as genocide is off the table. Resettlement, however, is a common occurrence. The economic migrants from Africa and the refugees from Syria are resettling Western Europe. The Soviets did it to stabilize eastern Europe post-ww2 (and massacre the Germans), the Jews are doing it right now to anchor their eastern border on the Jordan river. Resettlement is a natural occurrence throughout human history.

I totally support resettlement. That is completely sane and I think that it is possible to convince a majority of high-IQ races to support it. Genocide will never have popular support.

Edited 8/27/2017 14:28:57
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 15:03:30

TabbyCat
Level 7
Report
^I'm strictly against genocide (in the sense of killing people based on race, ethnicity, etc) and any other form of physically harm done to anyone as well, including peafowls.

Resettlement of both blacks and non-blacks into Africa is good for everyone. Blacks on their own frequently forget to store food or maintain infrastructure. Hence to make Sub-Saharan Africa something other than a complete shithole and make sure that its most important resources such as arable land and minerals are actually properly utilized it is essential to let settlers in.

I think it is fair. If a Sub-Saharan African nation decides to let settlers in they need to be responsible for education, infrastructure, science, security and other sections natives aren't good at. For example if a group of autists have robots to patrol streets and DR Congo allows us to build a new autonomous city-state in some parts of DR Congo in exchange for keeping a district of the state safe we should do it. Then we should buy the land at fair market price and settle people in the new area. We should do whatever we want. However we should indeed honor our part of the deal and send robots to patrol the whole district for Congo, including defeating militias that invade the district. When we have enough people we should discuss with the Congolese gov to enlarge our city state if we build an airport for them or take care of a local university as well. I mean if they give us an entire province we can agree to take care of all of their security needs. We can set aside 1,000 settlers to control the robots and 10,000 people to build and maintain them. Then nobody in Sub-Saharan Africa (other than other settlers?) will dare to invade Congo again.

Edited 8/27/2017 15:22:07
discussion on Islam, drones, SJWs, and alt-right: 8/27/2017 15:29:52


Cata Cauda
Level 58
Report
^I'm strictly against genocide and any other form of physically harm done to anyone as well, including peafowls.
Last time I checked, you wanted to sterilise "low IQ groups".
Blacks on their own frequently forget to store food and maintain infrastructure.
*The corrupt goverments
Posts 1 - 30 of 73   1  2  3  Next >>   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service