Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
I'm sorry, but I do not trust you to give me viable scientific informations and won't lose time checking something I already know to be false based on the words of experts of nazism (or simply the simplest understanding of what socialism and capitalism are). Trust what you wanna tho.. it's not like I could convince you anyway.
Ok then what do you think the reason are and what is you opinion of this? I'm simply trying to understand why you are trying to show a link between ethnicities and the acceptation of LGBTQI+ in a political argument, that's all.
Especially when we know that ethnicities have no incidence on the matter, since the main factors of hostility toward lgbtqi+ arepractical religions, patriarchy and age.
So, what are you trying to say here?
On top of that, you seem to be supposing that these attitude can't evolve. Which is usually false in reality.
FInally, nothing here is showing that immigration necessarily increase the level of intolerance of society as said intolerance is usually manifested very differently than simply "not being cool with homosexuality because of religious reason" - For exemple, muslim in France, even if they are not really fan of homosexuality, are very chill with their peers.
It's something very important that I fear you do not take into consideration. This "hostility" toward LGBTQI+ is in reality ideological, not practical. We know that on the left since a LARGE part of it that still fight for lgbtqi+ rights are muslim themselves (with a lot of LGBTQI+ activist being muslim themselves).
So as you can see, we need to be careful when we try to justify the rejection of people based on their beliefs. Most people are chill.
Those are not on the other hand, are far rightist, who are currently trying to recuperate what they see has "progressist" struggles (LGB mainly) on one side (the political) while attacking LGBQTI+ directly in the streets on the other. Currently, if you ask trans people in France, what they will tell you is not that they fear muslim (they are our ally, even if they are not fans of homosexuality), what they fear is being attacked in the streets or killed by their compagnion that will not be able to tank an outing of a relationship with a trans person.
Ok then what do you think the reason are and what is you opinion of this? I'm simply trying to understand why you are trying to show a link between ethnicities and the acceptation of LGBTQI+ in a political argument, that's all.
Especially when we know that ethnicities have no incidence on the matter, since the main factors of hostility toward lgbtqi+ arepractical religions, patriarchy and age.
So, what are you trying to say here?
On top of that, you seem to be supposing that these attitude can't evolve. Which is usually false in reality.
FInally, nothing here is showing that immigration necessarily increase the level of intolerance of society as said intolerance is usually manifested very differently than simply "not being cool with homosexuality because of religious reason" - For exemple, muslim in France, even if they are not really fan of homosexuality, are very chill with their peers.
It's something very important that I fear you do not take into consideration. This "hostility" toward LGBTQI+ is in reality ideological, not practical. We know that on the left since a LARGE part of it that still fight for lgbtqi+ rights are muslim themselves (with a lot of LGBTQI+ activist being muslim themselves).
So as you can see, we need to be careful when we try to justify the rejection of people based on their beliefs. Most people are chill.
Those are not on the other hand, are far rightist, who are currently trying to recuperate what they see has "progressist" struggles (LGB mainly) on one side (the political) while attacking LGBQTI+ directly in the streets on the other. Currently, if you ask trans people in France, what they will tell you is not that they fear muslim (they are our ally, even if they are not fans of homosexuality), what they fear is being attacked in the streets or killed by their compagnion that will not be able to tank an outing of a relationship with a trans person.
Are you serious? I sent statistics earlier in the thread. For someone who bangs on about sources, and science, and reason, you don't read do you? I am not entertaining this.
If you want to know why I believe this, at least read the evidence.
Well done, you're conflating an entire religion with ethnic groups by feeling the need to highlight Muslims as being involved in anti-hatred. Christ, you are such a racist. I did not explicitly state that the issue was purely Islamic. I even stated pages back that many of the migrants from Africa are Christian. In my previous response I made it clear that I do not know the reason, but there is a pattern, and to ignore it is just you being caught up in your ideological biases.
Incorrect again. I showed statistics that intolerance has gone down over the course of 20 years. However, the rate at which it decreased was lesser among Black and South Asians. By posting that, I am accepting that attitudes can change.
It's like you decide everyone is saying one thing and then decide to argue over it. It's impossible to take you seriously. I'm starting to think you're just a troll.
If you want to know why I believe this, at least read the evidence.
Well done, you're conflating an entire religion with ethnic groups by feeling the need to highlight Muslims as being involved in anti-hatred. Christ, you are such a racist. I did not explicitly state that the issue was purely Islamic. I even stated pages back that many of the migrants from Africa are Christian. In my previous response I made it clear that I do not know the reason, but there is a pattern, and to ignore it is just you being caught up in your ideological biases.
Incorrect again. I showed statistics that intolerance has gone down over the course of 20 years. However, the rate at which it decreased was lesser among Black and South Asians. By posting that, I am accepting that attitudes can change.
It's like you decide everyone is saying one thing and then decide to argue over it. It's impossible to take you seriously. I'm starting to think you're just a troll.
Statistic don't give me your opinion and your reason for trying to link these things
I did, but that is nothing that I don't already know...
Perhaps you didn't read these study well. This reject of homosexuality is usually based on religious beliefs (which is why I gave you the example of muslim in France but it works with christianity too). And as I explained religious belief do not equate with negative behavior. You can consider homosexuality as a sin and still be nice and an ally of LGBTQI+.
Now I'm trying to understand why you are trying to link ethnicities with negative behaviors or beliefs system in an argument about immigration.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Ok then why are you sharing these datas to show "a pattern" in the context of a discussion about "illegal immigration"?
I'm not making assumption anymore, I'm asking questions and making observations. You can correct me if you want. I'm only sharing how I am interpreting your message.
Now... the situation is quite pecular frankly. Until a few days ago, I was completely lost in this battle to convince you guyz, I felt like I had to defend basic beliefs system everyday. But I let that go, and now that I'm not trying to convince you anymore and just asking basic question with actual respect inside them... I'm realizing that this battle completely prevented you guyz from actually expressing your true beliefs...
It's like I have been putting a large smokescreen over this thread for two years. Everyone was focused on me... But look at that... Suddenly, you are all showing your true colors. I find this switch fascinating. I'm glad, I think I finally made the right choice.
? Hitler by defintion, actions, and goals was not a socialist. Hitler himself admitted that he only called himself and his party socialist because it was popular with the people, and redefined the word to mean racial and national loyalty in Nazi Germany alone.
Socialists and communists were two of Hitler's biggest targets and victims, and Hitler has expressed his hatred and perceived threat of them. Hitler banned and killed leftist, destroyed labor unions, protected big capital, and supported privatization.
He was one of the most cookie-cutter far rightist and anti-leftist imaginable.
Socialists and communists were two of Hitler's biggest targets and victims, and Hitler has expressed his hatred and perceived threat of them. Hitler banned and killed leftist, destroyed labor unions, protected big capital, and supported privatization.
He was one of the most cookie-cutter far rightist and anti-leftist imaginable.
I can only take your misunderstandings so many times before I think you are purposefully trying to provoke an argument.
I have been quite clear with my views, and feel no need to further repeat them.
I used to read your essays, and even spent the time to understand your materialist viewpoint. You can at least be respectful enough do your own checking if you are so intrigued. If not, consider our conversation concluded.
I mean, guy may have won if he hadn't hated the Slavic communists so much.
He just couldn't keep that under wraps before eradicating the Jews and Western Europe.
I have been quite clear with my views, and feel no need to further repeat them.
I used to read your essays, and even spent the time to understand your materialist viewpoint. You can at least be respectful enough do your own checking if you are so intrigued. If not, consider our conversation concluded.
I mean, guy may have won if he hadn't hated the Slavic communists so much.
He just couldn't keep that under wraps before eradicating the Jews and Western Europe.No. I'm simply trying to understand (and sometime challenge) the coherence and ethics of your beliefs.
Ok
It's really scary to me that people are still trying to depict Hitler as a socialist simply because of the name "socialist" in his party. That lack of interest for the structure of the Nazi system and its impact (political opponent like socialist being sent to death like you said) is frightening.
Ok
? Hitler by defintion, actions, and goals was not a socialist. Hitler himself admitted that he only called himself and his party socialist because it was popular with the people, and redefined the word to mean racial and national loyalty in Nazi Germany alone.
Socialists and communists were two of Hitler's biggest targets and victims, and Hitler has expressed his hatred and perceived threat of them. Hitler banned and killed leftist, destroyed labor unions, protected big capital, and supported privatization.
He was one of the most cookie-cutter far rightist and anti-leftist imaginable.
Socialists and communists were two of Hitler's biggest targets and victims, and Hitler has expressed his hatred and perceived threat of them. Hitler banned and killed leftist, destroyed labor unions, protected big capital, and supported privatization.
He was one of the most cookie-cutter far rightist and anti-leftist imaginable.
I mean, guy may have won if he hadn't hated the Slavic communists so much. He just couldn't keep that under wraps before eradicating the Jews and Western Europe.
He just couldn't keep that under wraps before eradicating the Jews and Western Europe.
Because pro capitalist propaganda(like the US Red Scare) and the need to distance yourself from the worst of your ideologies.
