Germany NYE attacks

  On 1/17/2016 at 9:11 PM, caze said:

 

  On 1/17/2016 at 9:10 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 1/17/2016 at 2:17 PM, caze said:

 

  On 1/17/2016 at 6:27 AM, chenGOD said:

Yeah if you're going to try and kill a tranny, at least do it the good old fashioned american way, am i right limpy?

 

yeah, american's attacking transgender people in america, is exactly the same as north african migrants attacking transgender germans in germany. chenGOD (king of logic) to the rescue once again.

 

 

What if they were Mexican migrants?

 

What if they were US marines in the philippines who killed the person after eh found out she was a transgender?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/transgender-filipina-fiancee-forgive-marine-suspected-murder-article-1.1980605

 

 

It would still have nothing to do with anything.

 

So what if you understood that 3 people don't represent the whole migrant community? Much like the idiot marine who killed the transgender in the Philippines doesn't represent the whole of the US.

Did they do those murders in the name of an intolerant ideology? No? Then shut it.

  On 1/17/2016 at 10:55 PM, vasio said:

Did they do those murders in the name of an intolerant ideology? No? Then shut it.

Neither did those migrant boys.

Because they didn't do any murders.

They threw some gravel.

  On 1/17/2016 at 10:37 PM, chenGOD said:

So what if you understood that 3 people don't represent the whole migrant community? Much like the idiot marine who killed the transgender in the Philippines doesn't represent the whole of the US.

I do understand that. What gives you the impression that I don't?

  On 1/17/2016 at 11:13 PM, caze said:

 

  On 1/17/2016 at 10:37 PM, chenGOD said:

So what if you understood that 3 people don't represent the whole migrant community? Much like the idiot marine who killed the transgender in the Philippines doesn't represent the whole of the US.

 

I do understand that. What gives you the impression that I don't?

 

The part where you implied that it was the North African migrant bit that made this particular attack unique.

  On 1/17/2016 at 11:58 PM, chenGOD said:

The part where you implied that it was the North African migrant bit that made this particular attack unique.

That's all in your head I'm afraid, I implied nothing of the sort.

  On 1/17/2016 at 10:55 PM, vasio said:

Did they do those murders in the name of an intolerant ideology? No? Then shut it.

Yes, it's called the anti-transgender ideology.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2012/10/26/transgender-woman-stoned-death-brazil

  On 1/17/2016 at 2:17 PM, caze said:

 

  On 1/17/2016 at 6:27 AM, chenGOD said:

Yeah if you're going to try and kill a tranny, at least do it the good old fashioned american way, am i right limpy?

 

yeah, american's attacking transgender people in america, is exactly the same as north african migrants attacking transgender germans in germany. chenGOD (king of logic) to the rescue once again.

 

  On 1/18/2016 at 12:01 AM, caze said:

 

  On 1/17/2016 at 11:58 PM, chenGOD said:

The part where you implied that it was the North African migrant bit that made this particular attack unique.

 

That's all in your head I'm afraid, I implied nothing of the sort.

 

If that's not an implication that the North African migrant part was what made it unique, then I'm afraid you'll have to state clearly what that meant.

  On 1/17/2016 at 7:40 PM, delet... said:

The main problem I have with all this is that it is going to fuck up our countries, and be especially hard on our currently poor and marginalised and those bleeding heart types that should be a shield for those people have instead glommed onto a new host that they can suck even more pity points from to satisfy their lust for validation for being thought of as generous, the new host being third world economic migrants. These ignorant and ironically intolerant (of facts, trends, obvious social change, factors that maintain the viability of the nation state and its economy, and most of all intolerant of the diversity inherent in opinion that differs from their own as long as it comes from a local), these self righteous fuckers are taking our future away, rapidly and with remorse.

Another "Fall of Rome"?

Could i ask, are you an indigenous Australian? Cos if not = comical levels of hypocrisy posted here

You live in a land clearly built on genocide & ethnic cleansing, so your today was someone else's future irreversibly & permanently broken. Hence, f u dont apply similar reasoning your hypocrisy will out

there was superb documentary on the BBC recently about how the emancipation of slaves lead to a scrummage of insurance claims in this cuntry (pun intended) and how that money was then reinvested in upgrading Britain's industrial-era infrastructure, pretty much the same infrastructure we see today

the trick is in recognizing the hypocrisy and learning from it, not that i hold much hope for you there

and while comparing the US in recent years to Europe today doesnt entirely tally, Mr Stanhope nearly always comes good with the bs detector radar:

ps: googled the slavery documentaries and some are available online,,,,,,, simply staggering levels of greed & financial conniving (fyi, i only referenced this to mask my own commie-pinko ignorance and intolerances)

https://www.google.co.uk/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=-pHOU8n5Bc_H8ge1xoJA#safe=off&q=britain%27s+forgotten+slave+owners

Most immigrants realize that if you're moving to a completely new country, you're going to have to suck it up and actually assimilate to some degree at least. It's a very reasonable expectation to have. If a surgeon from Somalia wanted to come to America and start cutting off clits, we'd tell him to gtfo, and rightfully so. You can keep that shit.

  On 1/18/2016 at 4:54 AM, Candiru said:

Most immigrants realize that if you're moving to a completely new country, you're going to have to suck it up and actually assimilate to some degree at least. It's a very reasonable expectation to have. If a surgeon from Somalia wanted to come to America and start cutting off clits, we'd tell him to gtfo, and rightfully so. You can keep that shit.

I agree with this, but that's not to say that all refugees will understand it. especially not the under-educated and deprived. there is a certain amount of adjusting/growing up you have to do when you're moving to a new country, it's difficult, and that difficulty is often understated because cultural walls are invisible/intangible.

I'll give a very mild personal example: when I arrived in Australia having lived in Dubai all my life, I wasn't used to saying please and thank you, because in Dubai there is a service industry underclass that is practically taken for granted, and secondarily my background culture also doesn't emphasise please & thank you at all. so one time I needed a train ticket to the city, I rocked up to the booth, asked for one, paid for it, and the guy in the booth puts his hand down on the ticket just as I'm about to pick it up and says "thank you. say thank you." it was jarring, I felt stupid for not doing it in the first place, and the guy was a crabby prick who hated his job... but the message got through and now I never forget to say please & thank you.

this shit takes time, generations even. like I said, the potential effects of cultural differences cannot be underestimated.

I believe that if refugees are causing unrest in the country they have been resettled in:

- the culprits ought to be made responsible in accordance with the law

- the authorities ought to make it clear that this behaviour is not tolerated

- the authorities ought to investigate why it's happening and work with the community to build bridges, find common ground and ensure longer-lasting peace

- parties seeking to exploit the situation by whipping up anti-immigrant sentiment ought to be treated as criminal

if you can't ensure that you can control the potential unrest, then you shouldn't be accepting a huge number of refugees. or you should be screening them more carefully. it's a fucked-up situation all around, humans are glorified animals when all's said and done, in spite of the supposed intelligence we've been gifted with (and usually squander). it's a common fantasy that adversity instills nobility and patience and all these other virtues, but irl chances are it makes you more grubby and scavenging and dulls your conscience.

oh yeah by the way, I heard about that Charlie Hebdo cartoon portraying the drowned Syrian kid as a future molester. nice one, you paragons of free speech.

Nous Sommes Shitcunts

  On 1/18/2016 at 6:23 AM, usagi said:

 

  On 1/18/2016 at 4:54 AM, Candiru said:

Most immigrants realize that if you're moving to a completely new country, you're going to have to suck it up and actually assimilate to some degree at least. It's a very reasonable expectation to have. If a surgeon from Somalia wanted to come to America and start cutting off clits, we'd tell him to gtfo, and rightfully so. You can keep that shit.

I agree with this, but that's not to say that all refugees will understand it. especially not the under-educated and deprived. there is a certain amount of adjusting/growing up you have to do when you're moving to a new country, it's difficult, and that difficulty is often understated because cultural walls are invisible/intangible.

 

I'll give a very mild personal example: when I arrived in Australia having lived in Dubai all my life, I wasn't used to saying please and thank you, because in Dubai there is a service industry underclass that is practically taken for granted, and secondarily my background culture also doesn't emphasise please & thank you at all. so one time I needed a train ticket to the city, I rocked up to the booth, asked for one, paid for it, and the guy in the booth puts his hand down on the ticket just as I'm about to pick it up and says "thank you. say thank you." it was jarring, I felt stupid for not doing it in the first place, and the guy was a crabby prick who hated his job... but the message got through and now I never forget to say please & thank you.

 

this shit takes time, generations even. like I said, the potential effects of cultural differences cannot be underestimated.

 

I believe that if refugees are causing unrest in the country they have been resettled in:

 

- the culprits ought to be made responsible in accordance with the law

- the authorities ought to make it clear that this behaviour is not tolerated

- the authorities ought to investigate why it's happening and work with the community to build bridges, find common ground and ensure longer-lasting peace

- parties seeking to exploit the situation by whipping up anti-immigrant sentiment ought to be treated as criminal

 

if you can't ensure that you can control the potential unrest, then you shouldn't be accepting a huge number of refugees. or you should be screening them more carefully. it's a fucked-up situation all around, humans are glorified animals when all's said and done, in spite of the supposed intelligence we've been gifted with (and usually squander). it's a common fantasy that adversity instills nobility and patience and all these other virtues, but irl chances are it makes you more grubby and scavenging and dulls your conscience.

 

oh yeah by the way, I heard about that Charlie Hebdo cartoon portraying the drowned Syrian kid as a future molester. nice one, you paragons of free speech.

great post. love u soggy

Indeed, great post.

porting in a troon thread

  On 1/17/2016 at 9:54 PM, phling said:

frustrated lower class youth will almost always turn into criminal asshole thugs. There's your problem right there.

Slavoj Zizek wrote a fairly interesting thinkpiece on the idea that global capitalism creates lower classes of entire nations, and the current influx of refugees' place next to Western society makes their actions sort of an inevitable act of obscenity.

http://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2016/01/slavoj-zizek-cologne-attacks

Though of course since it's Zizek, take it with a People's Party approved portion of salt.

  On 1/17/2016 at 10:00 PM, Alcofribas said:

i studied islam and not one time has there been an instance of a genuinely lush pad coming from these savages.

lol

  On 1/18/2016 at 6:29 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

re: hedbo - when your first defense is to cry 'free speech' it proves that there is no logical or ethical defense, or at least those concepts are not a priority.

Holy shit, Mesh...tell me you're joking my friend...

  On 1/18/2016 at 12:42 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 1/17/2016 at 2:17 PM, caze said:

yeah, american's attacking transgender people in america, is exactly the same as north african migrants attacking transgender germans in germany. chenGOD (king of logic) to the rescue once again.

 

If that's not an implication that the North African migrant part was what made it unique, then I'm afraid you'll have to state clearly what that meant.

It's an implication that your post has no relevance to our discussion. As I said earlier in the thread, superiority does not imply perfection, so pointing out a handful of examples of violence against LGBT people in various western societies (and not even the western societies actually under discussion) does not provide good evidence for your case (which seems to be that western societies in general are just as bad islamic societies when it comes to the treatment of women, and LGBT people, please correct me if I've got that wrong).

this from a person who laughs at 9/11. for shame.

  On 1/18/2016 at 4:52 PM, caze said:

 

  On 1/18/2016 at 12:42 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 1/17/2016 at 2:17 PM, caze said:

yeah, american's attacking transgender people in america, is exactly the same as north african migrants attacking transgender germans in germany. chenGOD (king of logic) to the rescue once again.

If that's not an implication that the North African migrant part was what made it unique, then I'm afraid you'll have to state clearly what that meant.

It's an implication that your post has no relevance to our discussion. As I said earlier in the thread, superiority does not imply perfection, so pointing out a handful of examples of violence against LGBT people in various western societies (and not even the western societies actually under discussion) does not provide good evidence for your case (which seems to be that western societies in general are just as bad islamic societies when it comes to the treatment of women, and LGBT people, please correct me if I've got that wrong).

Yes you've got that wrong.

It's not a handful of examples. There were more than 200 transgendered people killed in Brazil last year. More than 20 in the US. This is just transgender people. Bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals continues to be a major issue for these people (if it wasn't, they could maybe stop throwing these godawful pride parades, so dull).

Limpy posted this article to say "oh my god look how barbaric these three boys were in thrown stones, this is evidence that the Muslims (oh my god they're so scary) should be thrown out, they're monstrous".

I posted the article and subsequent ones to show that bigotry is not exclusive to Muslims, and we cannot claim any sort of moral superiority (never mind perfection). Homosexuality and being a transgender is not illegal in many Muslim countries. It is illegal in many western countries, or has only very recently been made legal in others, where societal attitudes still exhibit the bigotry and violence towards LGBT that I chose to illustrate.

The answer of course is not to say, as limpy did, that all Muslims should be tarred with the same brush, but should be dealt with as individual cases (which is what the police apparently did I this case).

This whole thread is based essentially on a lack of perspective. Even if there were 1000 perpetrators of these assaults on NYE, that's still only 0.1% of the 2015 migrants.

Of course there weren't 1000 perpetrators, nor do we know if all of the perpetrators were recent migrants, or if they were second generation migrants.

It's simply fearmongering based on the "other".

  On 1/18/2016 at 5:34 PM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

 

  On 1/18/2016 at 4:50 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 1/18/2016 at 6:29 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

re: hedbo - when your first defense is to cry 'free speech' it proves that there is no logical or ethical defense, or at least those concepts are not a priority.

Holy shit, Mesh...tell me you're joking my friend...

not at all. this is usually the first card people play when they are called out for spouting racist nonsense or anything generally hateful. instead of trying to defend themselves on any other grounds they instead redundantly remind us that free speech is a concept that exists as if anyone were questioning that fact in the first place.

 

yknow limpy for a 'lefty' or a 'liberal' or whatever you consider yourself you're painfully conservative, or at least you have a habit of repeating the same garbage talking points they stick to time and time again.

 

1) Are you one of those people who thinks drawing Muhammad is racist?

2) I have talked extensively on here about "sounding liberal" vs "having actual liberal goals for this world" and how the two are often conflated.

If I'm being honest, I think you are most interested in sounding liberal.

As someone who cares about human rights, LBGT rights, scientific literacy, etc I am indeed highly critical of religious beliefs and culture (to the extant that the former and latter are incompatible). Whereas you want your cake and to eat it to, somehow unaware that eating your cake precludes you from having it.

  On 1/18/2016 at 5:53 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 1/18/2016 at 4:52 PM, caze said:

 

  On 1/18/2016 at 12:42 AM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 1/17/2016 at 2:17 PM, caze said:

yeah, american's attacking transgender people in america, is exactly the same as north african migrants attacking transgender germans in germany. chenGOD (king of logic) to the rescue once again.

If that's not an implication that the North African migrant part was what made it unique, then I'm afraid you'll have to state clearly what that meant.

It's an implication that your post has no relevance to our discussion. As I said earlier in the thread, superiority does not imply perfection, so pointing out a handful of examples of violence against LGBT people in various western societies (and not even the western societies actually under discussion) does not provide good evidence for your case (which seems to be that western societies in general are just as bad islamic societies when it comes to the treatment of women, and LGBT people, please correct me if I've got that wrong).

Yes you've got that wrong.

It's not a handful of examples. There were more than 200 transgendered people killed in Brazil last year. More than 20 in the US. This is just transgender people. Bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals continues to be a major issue for these people (if it wasn't, they could maybe stop throwing these godawful pride parades, so dull).

 

Limpy posted this article to say "oh my god look how barbaric these three boys were in thrown stones, this is evidence that the Muslims (oh my god they're so scary) should be thrown out, they're monstrous".

 

I posted the article and subsequent ones to show that bigotry is not exclusive to Muslims, and we cannot claim any sort of moral superiority (never mind perfection). Homosexuality and being a transgender is not illegal in many Muslim countries. It is illegal in many western countries, or has only very recently been made legal in others, where societal attitudes still exhibit the bigotry and violence towards LGBT that I chose to illustrate.

 

The answer of course is not to say, as limpy did, that all Muslims should be tarred with the same brush, but should be dealt with as individual cases (which is what the police apparently did I this case).

 

This whole thread is based essentially on a lack of perspective. Even if there were 1000 perpetrators of these assaults on NYE, that's still only 0.1% of the 2015 migrants.

Of course there weren't 1000 perpetrators, nor do we know if all of the perpetrators were recent migrants, or if they were second generation migrants.

It's simply fearmongering based on the "other".

 

1) C'mon now, Chen. You're way too intelligent for that...I know that you know that isn't my goal.

Muslims have been doing some awesome shit lately: donated 30,000 gallons (or bottles, I forget) of water to Flint, Michigan; protecting Christians during a recent terrorist attack (looking back, this happens quite frequently, actually); the recent anti-ISIS campaigns of this sort or that, etc etc

2) I am pro-immigration (three of my immediate neighbors ("hallmates") are recent immigrants and they're awesome people: one is South Sadanese, one is a Muslim woman from somewhere else in MENA, and one is Mexican...). These people happen to be among the handful of people in my building I would happily help move or lend money to.

My only real "anti-immigration" position is that immigrants who immediately start committing crimes should be thrown out. I'm not talking about nicking a candy bar, either, I mean violence or other egregious crimes.

I am mostly interested in the sort-of epidemiology of beliefs, values, norms, etc. A lot of the problems in the world can be chalked up to socio-economics. But other problems (e.g. Israel vs. Palestine) are the direct result of two groups of people with crazy-ass religious beliefs, acting in accordance with those beliefs. And people tend not to want to admit that religious beliefs are influencing these behaviors at all, and I find that highly problematic.

'Liberals' like MGF tend to think that religious beliefs are like taste in music or something: ultimately benign and irrelevant to the problems of the world. That there is no correlation between (e.g.) worshiping a violent dude who beheaded people and took sex slaves, and beheading people and taking sex slaves.

Limpy - when you post an article, and provide no context beyond "what the actual fuck?" combined with your admiration of Sam Harris, it's easy to misconstrue your argument.

I also happen to believe that the religious aspect is largely irrelevant - ISIS wants, well let me quote Kendrick here:

"All my life I want money and power
Respect my mind or die from lead shower
I pray my dick get big as the Eiffel Tower
So I can fuck the world for seventy-two hours"

The religious aspect is simply a means of using religion to control the people they colonize, much like has been done throughout history, with all religions. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism - these are means to control, yes, but they have little to do with the end goal of ISIS.

So for me, the question of how to solve ISIS is not to equate the religious beliefs as a source for their barbarism, but simply call out the acts of barbarism for what they are. This does not absolve ISIS of the obviously heinous shit that they are doing, but it does move the narrative into a more constructive space - i.e. away from the idea that this is Muslims vs. the west (which it obviously isn't).

So yes the throwing of stones at the transgender people was obviously not on, but what I was trying to indicate by posting the links that I did is that "religious beliefs" per se are not the root cause, it's a warping of religious beliefs (be they Christian, Buddhist, Islamic) that cause individuals to act this way.

When you combine them with terrible economic and infrastructure conditions like those that exist in Syria and Iraq (side note - yesterday was the 25th anniversary of the beginning of the US bombing campaign in Iraq), the impressionability of young people (the three assailants were between 16-18) and a whole host of factors beyond just "religious beliefs made them do fucked up things".

Why should they be thrown out? Why not simply punish them under the laws of the country? Doesn't that send a stronger message? "You are our guests here, and you will respect our way of life or you will be punished for it. This (policing plus legal system) is how we maintain our way of life."

As opposed to "We can't deal with you guys, so we're going to send you back to the shithole we helped create through our fucked up foreign policy."

What does it say about the belief in the strength of our legal systems if we can't enforce it on three teenagers?

  On 1/19/2016 at 12:27 AM, chenGOD said:

Limpy - when you post an article, and provide no context beyond "what the actual fuck?" combined with your admiration of Sam Harris, it's easy to misconstrue your argument.

 

I also happen to believe that the religious aspect is largely irrelevant - ISIS wants, well let me quote Kendrick here:

 

"All my life I want money and power

Respect my mind or die from lead shower

I pray my dick get big as the Eiffel Tower

So I can fuck the world for seventy-two hours"

 

The religious aspect is simply a means of using religion to control the people they colonize, much like has been done throughout history, with all religions. Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism - these are means to control, yes, but they have little to do with the end goal of ISIS.

So for me, the question of how to solve ISIS is not to equate the religious beliefs as a source for their barbarism, but simply call out the acts of barbarism for what they are. This does not absolve ISIS of the obviously heinous shit that they are doing, but it does move the narrative into a more constructive space - i.e. away from the idea that this is Muslims vs. the west (which it obviously isn't).

 

So yes the throwing of stones at the transgender people was obviously not on, but what I was trying to indicate by posting the links that I did is that "religious beliefs" per se are not the root cause, it's a warping of religious beliefs (be they Christian, Buddhist, Islamic) that cause individuals to act this way.

When you combine them with terrible economic and infrastructure conditions like those that exist in Syria and Iraq (side note - yesterday was the 25th anniversary of the beginning of the US bombing campaign in Iraq), the impressionability of young people (the three assailants were between 16-18) and a whole host of factors beyond just "religious beliefs made them do fucked up things".

 

Why should they be thrown out? Why not simply punish them under the laws of the country? Doesn't that send a stronger message? "You are our guests here, and you will respect our way of life or you will be punished for it. This (policing plus legal system) is how we maintain our way of life."

As opposed to "We can't deal with you guys, so we're going to send you back to the shithole we helped create through our fucked up foreign policy."

What does it say about the belief in the strength of our legal systems if we can't enforce it on three teenagers?

I think we've reached a stalemate on whether ISIS is motivated by religious beliefs or not, so I'll just bite my tongue.

Instead, I'll just condescendingly leave this wiki link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

let me quote lil b here

based god based god based god based god based god based god based god