Thread has been deleted
Last comment
US extremist attacks
 | 
United Kingdom xTheDeadPixel 
youtu.be/MqPY1pjIrgY Every extremist attack in the US in 2018 was committed by the right-wing. Just think about that. The people that are so scared of the big bad Muslim man are the same as the very people they detest. Oh, what's that? Not every right-winger is an evangelical nutjob, you say?....Apply that to the Muslim man. I just blew your mind, didn't I?
2019-01-24 10:53
Repost?
2019-01-24 10:54
#2
 | 
United Kingdom xTheDeadPixel 
Got deleted because I used a banned word.
2019-01-24 10:55
Which one
2019-01-24 10:57
#5
 | 
United Kingdom xTheDeadPixel 
The name of the religion. That or the word used for the act of ending someones life. Not sure which.
2019-01-24 11:02
#201
 | 
Norway bruhfessor 
Nice propaganda video. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_headquar.. What kind of rightwing name is Nasim Najafi Aghdam? a vegan activist and aspiring fitness personality.[21] She was born in Urmia, Iran, and immigrated to the United States with her family in 1996.[22][23][24] She was a registered member of the Bahá'í Faith[25] and described how veganism was aligned with her religion
2019-01-24 19:28
"Police believe Aghdam was motivated by her displeasure at the policies and procedures of censorship of the YouTube channels that she maintained. She complained about YouTube on her website, writing "Youtube filtered my channels to keep them from getting views!", and that the company had demonetized most of her videos."
2019-01-25 03:55
#224
 | 
Norway bruhfessor 
Yes that is what it says in the wikipedia. Does this make her right-wing extremist? No
2019-01-25 08:13
And it doesn't make her a left wing extremist either, just a left winger that did something awful. Committing a violent crime for the purposes of your ideology makes it an extremist attack. Committing a violent crime because you put false blame on something is just a violent crime. If she had shot up Youtube HQ because of people consuming animal products, then that would be a left-wing extremist attack.
2019-01-25 10:28
#229
 | 
Norway bruhfessor 
??? by ur logic ur video does not make any sense either. There is no proof most of them are extreme rightwingers
2019-01-25 10:42
There is plenty of proof that they were far-right. adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2018#the-in.. However, I will concede that the structuring of the video is misleading due to the language used.
2019-01-25 11:12
#263
 | 
Norway bruhfessor 
Well to be fair these definitions do not make any sense. If you define rightwing extremist as nazi/whitesupremacist and extreme lefty as a communist/tree hugger then just by those definitions it is very unlikely to have any serial killers in the extreme left category... I dont think racism should be included in a political spectrum
2019-01-27 09:19
#55
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
when the left go too far, the right has to go too far to maintain balance. it's just natural way of things to balance out, that's why donald trump is a president.
2019-01-24 13:15
the left arent shooting their fellow americans though..
2019-01-24 13:33
#63
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
where did you get that research info from?
2019-01-24 13:34
the fucking news. inb4 fake news liberal media QQ
2019-01-24 13:41
#73
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
some news site actually said liberals dont shoot their fellow americans? sounds like propaganda
2019-01-24 13:46
every time a shooting in america is in the news here, its either some fucked in the head kid, or a right wing nutjob, occasionally some actual muslims like in boston years ago.
2019-01-24 13:51
#87
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
so you actually dont know if they kill their fellow americans or not. what a surprise.
2019-01-24 13:59
im pretty sure if a democrat shot multiple people for political reasons, i would hear about it in the news in holland, here on hltv, trump would tweet about it.
2019-01-24 14:05
#102
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
why would they specify his/her political view?
2019-01-24 14:08
because it is relevant to the politics of the USA? it can influence which parties people vote for? because it would be interesting news that ppl would click on?
2019-01-24 14:09
#120
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
and likewise without reporting the political view can also influence which parties people vote for.
2019-01-24 14:14
unfortunately, for that conspiracy theory to work, it requires all media to be in the hands of the people who want the democrats to win, and well, fox news is still a thing...
2019-01-24 14:16
#127
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
it actually just needs people who follow certain news sites,
2019-01-24 14:19
here i found one from 2017. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional.. guy opens fire at some politicians. 1 guy died, the shooter himself. cant find anything about a democrat shooting in 2018 on any site including fox. if anyone does have some info about that id like to see it, its an interesting topic. now compare to this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2018_Unite..
2019-01-24 14:25
#140
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
any reason why you think his political view was mentioned?
2019-01-24 14:35
yes, because it is relevant.
2019-01-24 14:36
#149
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
exactly, politicians political view gets mentioned. and then politicians get attacked, so there will be political vies mentioned. but where are the news where the political view doesnt necessarily have anything to do with the news but is mentioned anyway?
2019-01-24 14:48
obviously if someone goes out of their way to search for a certain politician and shoot them, its a political action and their political view is relevant. if someone goes out to shoot people who have certain political beliefs, its a political action, its terrorism. its not like politicians or people who get shot by far right nutjobs just happen to be walking through the wrong neighbourhood. those guys go out of their way to look for a certain group of people to shoot.
2019-01-24 14:51
#188
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
a murder can still be political even without politicians lmao.
2019-01-24 17:20
It could provide the public with some added information on who the perpetrator was. Even if it wasn't connected.
2019-01-24 14:50
Let me hook in right here. I wasnt sure if either of you is wrong or right so i tried to check and in turns out, that it is actually almost impossible to make any connections. I found sources according to who both dems and reps share a similar murderrate (almost perfectly in sync with the percentages of votes for the parties), but its important to note 3 things: 1: None of the sources included data from the latest years, all are older stats. 2: These stats dont include the victims, so we dont know if americans got killes or whatever, but I guess its not far fecthed to say, that most of the victims are most likely americans and that a small percentage on the rep-side goes towards immigrants/non-americans (as its not too hard to trace that back, I feel fine assuming this). 3: Most of it was people looing for stats to back their arguement, so sources range from favoring dems to favoring reps.
2019-01-24 14:51
its not about murder rate in general but specifically about attacks with political goals in mind, attacks that arent just targeting 1 individual but that want to send a message or influence people. in other words terrorism. like the guy that mailed bombs to democrat politicians, thats clearly terrorism. i dont really hear about democrats mailing bombs to republican politicians.
2019-01-24 14:54
I took this statement: "superappelflap the left arent shooting their fellow americans though.. fatboislim where did you get that research info from?" Obviously its not too hard to find, that political motivated murders are happening more from the right. Even the right itself struggles to bring up many cases of political motivated killings done by the reps. Though those exist aswell ofc :D PS: Didnt mean to take his side or your side btw, I was just interested in the stats myself.
2019-01-24 14:55
yeah i should have said "the left arent shooting their fellow americans for political reasons"
2019-01-24 14:56
Yeah, that I would agree to :)
2019-01-24 15:01
#189
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
and that could be wrong aswell.
2019-01-24 17:21
well you have had plenty of time to look it up, i looked myself and found 1 non lethal shooting by a democrat in 2017, so unless youre willing to extensively research the subject and report your findings to me im going to assume i was right.
2019-01-24 17:23
#195
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
how do you know there are no more than that? and im playing so, no time to research.
2019-01-24 18:07
Because the motive could be influenced by their political views.
2019-01-24 14:10
#112
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
but that would just be an assumption?
2019-01-24 14:11
How come? If the political view gets mentioned on the news, there are usually (not saying always because I don't have proof for there always being a connection between the two) links between the motive and the perpetrator's political views. edit: At least here in the Netherlands.
2019-01-24 14:16
#132
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
if you dont have proof that there is a link, then there is no political view mentioned. but that doesnt mean that there is no link.
2019-01-24 14:24
To quote your earlier reply; "but that would just be an assumption?"
2019-01-24 14:25
#145
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
alright so we can also assume none of those extreme right murders were associated with political views, but somehow it became a fact under a leftist media.
2019-01-24 14:39
Far left, and far right media should both be avoided due to their obvious biased opinions on certain subjects. I'm sure there has been a case of someone's political views being used as a selling point, even if it wasn't connected to what happened. However, denying all of the murders is just not reasonable.
2019-01-24 14:47
Wait, I dont wanna be mean, its a serious question. You just wrote: "we can also assume none of those extreme right murders were associated with political views". Idk, but to me "extreme right murders" already say, that the motivation was at least partly based on political views. Otherwise that case would just be a murder case and not pointing at the extreme right. If a rep murders a black person in a robbery, its not an "extreme right murder", but if that reps intention was to attack a black person and not the robbery itself, then its politically motivated, right?
2019-01-24 14:59
#171
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
i guess if a purely racist attack can be called political. But imo it's just a hatecrime. I mean you dont have to be right winger to be a racist right?
2019-01-24 15:33
No obviously you can be racist and vote for whatever you want. I mean if dem would kill whites to bring down the establishment, that could be considered racist aswell. I just think that racism and politics go hand in hand in 99% of all cases. Cant really think of cases of racism where it was completely nonpolitical.
2019-01-24 18:35
#198
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/04/flor.. i dont see political strings in this one. but i have a weird feeling this was included in the ''right wing murders'' list just because it was racist.
2019-01-24 19:09
"Another lamented an “invasion” of the US by migrants from Central America." Thats him talking about an invasion. As I said, its ahrd to disconnect racist crime with politics. Iwould maybe even argue that racism in itself holds a political view. Obviously you dont have to vote for Trump to be right-winged. But I get your point and I respect that.
2019-01-24 20:20
Binkley, 21, was due to graduate in May and was studying German and editing, writing and media. hmm hmm studying german and media, interesting.... but ur right theres nothing in that article to suggest it was political.
2019-01-25 16:20
#248
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
not really that interesting. and yes i am right.
2019-01-25 16:24
its kind of interesting, a guy who studies german and media shoots some black people, it had to be german and not french or italian of course. maybe he was inspired by certain historical german figures...
2019-01-25 16:29
#252
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
really far fetched as a lot of people study german language because it's the center of europe.
2019-01-25 16:30
a lot of ppl study german in america?
2019-01-25 16:31
#254
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
yes
2019-01-25 16:35
i arent think that americans learning other languages cmonbruh
2019-01-25 16:37
#256
 | 
Iceland fatboislim 
then dont.
2019-01-25 16:37
#4
 | 
Turkey tastemycobra 
Yea i'm mind blown
2019-01-24 10:59
I was wondering why does kids on HLTV care so much about those kind of things. Left wing, right wing, liberal, wabababla. Just watch anime and enjoy your life.
2019-01-24 11:01
#7
 | 
United Kingdom xTheDeadPixel 
I'm only caring just because of the sheer amount of misinformation or hyperbole on here. Didn't even post on here until I saw this stuff popping up everywhere.
2019-01-24 11:04
Learn English first before you start fakeflagging
2019-01-24 13:02
Did you mean learn American?
2019-01-24 13:31
Every terror attack is done by people following islam How about that?
2019-01-24 11:05
Every terror attack was done by extremists. How about that?
2019-01-24 11:06
Every thread on hltv was made by hltv users. How about that?
2019-01-24 11:07
You see, you can apply this to everything, so it's kinda dumb. Also whataboutism
2019-01-24 11:08
#11
 | 
Norway rogueplayer 
oof cya 10 years
2019-01-24 11:07
#42
 | 
World ///fuck 
It's not like the US has been bombing the middle east and other parts of the world for decades.
2019-01-24 12:14
didnt know breivik was muslim
2019-01-24 14:15
IRA was though. Kappa
2019-01-25 10:35
#162
 | 
Lithuania arres 
add the word almost and you're in a clear
2019-01-24 14:58
Almost =/= 99% I'm just rounding it.
2019-01-24 16:03
#182
 | 
Lithuania arres 
if you don't do it you are leaving space for people like in #124
2019-01-24 16:35
biased video
2019-01-24 11:06
#12
 | 
Norway rogueplayer 
+1
2019-01-24 11:07
There is nothing such as not biased, everyone is biased in some way, some more and some less. Live with that but dont just stay in your comfort zone and try to understand the other side.
2019-01-24 11:12
why you are telling me this? i didnt make 9 minute video about bitching about right wing
2019-01-24 11:13
It's more like a generall idea, but u just made that comment about biased so, why not, I'm bored anyway
2019-01-24 11:14
Is everything really biased? How about aticles written by Artificial intelligence?
2019-01-24 11:18
Where do they get their information from? Who trained the artificial intelligence? What information does the Ai have? Who wrote the AI? With what Information did he get trained? (weird english) Afther all there is still a humand programming and "feeding" the Ai with intel etc.
2019-01-24 11:22
I would guess that someone randomly fed the AI news articles, but yeah it gets bias from training dataset, the question really is if it is bias, can you classify connections betweeen nodes in a machine as a bias? The machine doesnt really have an opinion or feelings, so can it really have bias?
2019-01-24 11:28
Hard question, gonna answer later, need to know a bit moer about AI to have a potent answer but my take would be that the Ai itself isnt biased just trough the intel it gets the "logica" outcome is biased, if the intel is biased the outcome will be (most likely) Not biase intel = not biased outcome (most likely) But what happens when the AI has a two very biased articels abput the same thing, but one of the intels is more right wing and the other more on the left wing (Just an example). What would happen? I dont know but i think an AI itself isn't biased in it's fundamentals. But I'm not an expert. Just a student ^^
2019-01-24 11:35
I agree that AI itself is not and, at least for the moment, can't be biased, so if the dataset is big enough and diverse enough, an AI written article could be unbiased. Well 2 articles is not enough to train an AI, but i think it would be in the middle, hard to say. Would be a fascinating research to feed differently biased information to AI and look at the results.
2019-01-24 11:51
#20
 | 
United Kingdom xTheDeadPixel 
Would you trust it more if it was posted by Breitbart or Ben Shapiro? Oh yeah, they never talk about anything that shows the right for what it really is. Here's some links so you can read up on this without watching that silly leftist biased video. talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/anti-def.. washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-anti-.. abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/US/e..
2019-01-24 11:14
In the link that you provided, "Every one of the perpetrators had ties to at least one right-wing extremist movement, although one had recently switched to supporting Islamist extremism." So do you also realize that Islam is a conservative core belief? The issue is that you are standing up for a group of people with beliefs that do not even agree with your own. Islam is not hated due to just terrorism, it is their core violent beliefs inscribed in the Quran that scare people.
2019-01-24 13:04
#56
 | 
United Kingdom xTheDeadPixel 
I never said I defended the guy that switched. Violence = wrong. End of. Regardless of side. Speaking of the Quran, that's something I've wanted to talk to someone about for a while. There are violent core beliefs in the Bible too. But why does Christianity get a pass and the other not? Because at the very core of the argument is something not many people care to learn. The countries that adhere to Islamic Law as the law of the land are inherently fucked up. The countries that are still Muslim majority but have no national religion are much more lax. Female Genital Mutilation is something that is regarded as a Muslim practice, but in reality is more common amongst Christian African nations. What exactly would you envision a nation to be if they declared the Old Testament as the law of the land? My guess would be pretty archaic, just like those that adhere to Islamic Law.
2019-01-24 13:16
Christianity has reformed several times while most Muslim countries no matter what kind will still cut your head off if you are gay or are Jewish. I don't support either of these religions but its dangerous to assume that Muslims would be welcoming with open arms to all kinds of people. We haven't dumped thousands of refugees into our streets in the US and if we did, background checks would probably deny them purchasing firearms legally. Europe has dumped thousands of undocumented refugees and they are shooting up markets in France like every year? I don't think its a coincidence.
2019-01-24 13:32
actually the koran specifies that jews must be allowed to live in the muslim state, they have to pay a tax for not being muslim, like christians and all other non muslims, but there is actually supposed to be freedom of religion. that many modern muslim states dont allow everyone this freedom means that they arent following their religion fully. they cherry pick the parts they like, like 99% of people.
2019-01-24 14:44
The problem with you apologists, is you equate Islam with Christianity and Judaism... While all of them are horrible, Islam is by far the most dangerous one because it is inherently political. Christianity was never political and it never intented to be (what Vatican did with crusades is not prescribed in the Bible). Jesus also said: Give to God what belongs to God and give to Ceaser what belongs to Ceaser. Judaism is political (The chosen people) but they can't act on that until their Messiah comes... Actually they shouldn't even be in Palestine until their Messiah comes. The Talmud is one filthy scripture, far worse than anything else but Jews are more 'sectarian' in the sense that they don't want to share their religion, they keep it for themselves. Islam on the other hand it is within Islamic doctrine that they should aspire for a global Islamic Caliphate, where Sharia Law is applied... Sharia Law can't be seperated from Islam... You cannot be a true Muslim and reject Sharia. Sharia Law: Beheadings, whippings, cutting of ligaments, stonings, death for apostasy... And the most dangerous part is that Islam can never be reformed... Liberals think that it's possible, but it just cannot and never will be... A book claiming to be the literal word of Allah, in a culture based on oral transmission, even if you burned every last book to the ground, there are millions of people who memorised it... And btw there's no freedom of religion in Islam, only Christianity and Judaism are 'tolerated' to a certain extent, but not viewed and treated equally (no new churches or synagogues can be build, Jizya tax)... Any 'Polytheistic' religion (such as Hinduism, Buddhism, ...) is viewed as Shirk and should all of them should be killed ;)
2019-01-24 17:20
oh no i agree with that, the political aspiration of islam is dangerous if you take it literally, of course, there are lots of muslims who believe it is more of a spiritual thing, that the book doesnt mean to literally tell people that all the world must be united in one nation of islam, but that that nation is in your heart and your spirit or whatever. every religion can be reformed. look at the ten thousand reformations of christianity. starting with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_N.. if this principle were applied to islam, it would only take a few centuries to completely change the religion. of course this would require rewriting history and burning every old version of the koran and doing numerous other unspeakable things, but its perfectly possible. i think its a bad idea though. its best if the people of the middle east are left to solve their own problems and search for enlightenment in their own way. if they change their religious views of their own free will, that will be better than outside influence.
2019-01-24 17:20
The thing with Christanity, it was never the literal word of God, it was the word of MEN INSPIRED by God, thus making reform possible.... Jesus didn't write the Bible, nor God.... It was men, 200 years after Jesus that wrote the New Testament.... If you compare it to the Quran, how can you reform the literal word of God? No Muslim will ever allow it.... And I agree that they should not be bothered, if they want to live with primitive ideals, they should be allowed, aslong as they don't bother anybody. This also means our countries should gtfo of there asap.
2019-01-24 17:24
christians were also told that the bible was the literal word of god
2019-01-24 17:24
the old testament literally handed down to moses on stones by the lord himself. the new testament a factual account of the life of jesus as witnessed by his apostles of course all bullshit
2019-01-24 17:25
#243
 | 
United States jew_cuck 
only the ten commandments were handed down to moses and those are the things saying be nice to people and dont commit murder or adultery.
2019-01-25 15:36
#23
 | 
Denmark dR_JaCkPoT 
its facts?
2019-01-24 11:17
tell me more pls
2019-01-24 11:18
#28
 | 
United Kingdom xTheDeadPixel 
You can check every single one of these incidents yourself if you're skeptical. adl.org/murder-and-extremism-2018#the-in..
2019-01-24 11:24
#101
blameF | 
Europe cArn5 
source: ADL
2019-01-24 14:08
Political parties are so malleable anyway. You could call someone who's a nazi a leftist because the nazis were socialist. But most people call them right wing. There's no reason for it, people just side the worst people with whomever they want to make look bad Political parties are fucking stupid, and if you associate your entire opinion on one side or the other and not at least a small amount in between. You're a fucking brainwashed sheep.
2019-01-24 11:09
#21
 | 
France TheArchitect 
Once again, nazis were not socialists at all. Under nazi regime communists and socialists were the first to go to concentration camp. Also the nazi party privatized a lot of public companies and gave all the capitalists wanted on a silver plate. The nazi party was in the end highly capitalist. The name was just to trick people, and 80 years after it still works.
2019-01-24 11:15
There is a beautifull cartoon about the socialist part in the term nsdap, just can't find it atm. Gonna give it later. But yeah they just had that in their name to addres the working people etc. They were not socialist but very good in propagande and shit.
2019-01-24 11:24
Only nominally. Market data such as interest rates, wage rates, profit margins, production quotas etc were all dictated by the ministerium. It was actually the other way around. They had a planned economy which retained property rights on paper. They were socialist but they were not Marxists, that's what people misunderstand about the Reich.
2019-01-24 11:49
they were totalitarian but not marxist. socialist = marxist in 1930.
2019-01-24 13:35
What made national socialism unique was its attempt to remake socialism in a German way. Reject marxian socialism while avoiding adopting Manchesterian liberalism which the intellectual forerunners of Nazism(the Socialists of the chair) decried as foreign and individualistic. It was socialism nonetheless, albeit in a more roundabout way.
2019-01-24 13:45
you cant reject marxist theory and maintain private ownership of the means of production and still be socialist. the netherlands in 1970 was 10x more socialist than germany was under the nazis.
2019-01-24 13:48
Read my first post again. They nominally did not reject it(private property of the means of production). But in practice they did. It's not rocket science. What they had differs only lightly from centrally planned war economies with all it's prices controls and directive regulations. And yes you can reject most of marxian theory and still be a socialist. There were other socialist authors you know. Not mentioning everyone and their mother used to claim to be the true interpreter of Marx and denounced other comrades as charlatans.
2019-01-24 13:55
are you speaking about something like utilitarianism or utopian socialism? imo marx' work directly continued these ideas, marxism is not an alternative to them, it built upon them. i guess you could be a very rudimentary utility based socialist without any marxist theory.
2019-01-24 17:32
No socialists are real socialists, most of them are democratic socialists, some of them are just plain capitalists. So obviously they weren't "real" but they were as real as any socialists were and the name of the party was literally the german socialist workers party.
2019-01-24 11:49
North Korea is literally called democatric republic of korea. The name was a trick to lure working class, and it worked well.
2019-01-25 15:18
If i'm correct they're a communist/dictatorship government though right? It's not really socialism at all.
2019-01-25 20:53
Dictatorship, yes. Socialist, no. They painted communists and socialists as the ultimate evil. Social democrats were sent to concetration camps. Edit: my bad, i thought you were talking about nazi germany. For north korea, i think youre correct.
2019-01-25 21:25
#26
 | 
Denmark dR_JaCkPoT 
Nazis were right wing lol
2019-01-24 11:18
No they weren't. The nazi party was literally the national socialist workers party. Its referred to as "far right" now, but socialism has ALWAYS Been far left. Regardless of what you want it to be.
2019-01-24 11:48
#44
 | 
United Kingdom xTheDeadPixel 
The Nazi Party emerged from the German nationalist, racist and populist Freikorps paramilitary culture. Literally the definition of far-right.
2019-01-24 12:53
I'm not arguing that they're not racist if thats what you think omegalul Racism doesn't fall into any political party, politics are based on political issues and opinionated solutions. You can be racist and be in any political party. If you let your racist beliefs impact your opinion on political issues than generally you're going to fall either far left or far right. Its EXTREMELY moronic to say "they're racist, so they're far right"
2019-01-24 12:59
fascism isnt far left or far right, its something different. radically different. totalitarian authoritarian capitalism. its basically the capitalist equivalent of stalinist communism. however en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Position_i.. "Most scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10][11] Such scholarship focuses on its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism.[47][48] Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the political right by explaining: "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be".[49]" i dont think these scholars are morons and they are literally saying that fascism is extreme right because they are racist.
2019-01-24 13:40
"GENERALLY you're going to fall either far left or far right."
2019-01-24 13:43
show me a far left racist
2019-01-24 13:44
The black nationalist movement is a reaction to centuries of institutionalized white supremacy in America. Black nationalists believe the answer to white racism is to form separate institutions — or even a separate nation — for black people. Most forms of black nationalism are strongly anti-white and anti-Semitic. Some religious versions assert that black people are the biblical "chosen people" of God. sorry i dont see anything about far left there.
2019-01-24 13:49
Actually learn about the party then and don't just read one paragraph? There are plenty of racists on the far left, your blinded by ignorance if you believe liberals are immune to being racist.
2019-01-24 13:51
Most scholars place fascism on the far right of the political spectrum.[6][7][8][9][10][11] Such scholarship focuses on its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism.[47][48] Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the political right by explaining: "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be".[49] the simple fact of ppl being far left means that they consider inequality between people of different races as undesirable
2019-01-24 13:53
Stop copy pasting shit, i don't give a shit that you know how to google and read. Argue for yourself instead of posting someone else's argument, especially since none of it is proving your point at all. The bible also says christians are supposed to love all, and catholics are one of the most hateful groups of people on earth. The definition of the group you stand behind has absolutely no relevance to what you actually believe. This is just further proof of my original statement. Political parties are malleable and useless.
2019-01-24 13:56
why would i put in effort writing shit myself that you can google in 10 seconds. it does prove my point, please try to turn your brain on and then read again.
2019-01-24 13:57
Why would you even paste it if I can google it in 10 seconds. Again I don't give a shit what the article your posting about says, get your own opinion instead of forming your opinion EXACTLY based on what others say.
2019-01-24 13:59
why would i waste my time thinking about this irrelevant shit when there are smart reasonable people unlike you who have made it their job to research the topic and put that information on the internet for free.
2019-01-24 14:03
Because generally intelligent people form their own opinions instead of letting people think for them.
2019-01-24 14:05
only if there isnt already extensive research on the subject
2019-01-24 14:07
smart people dont waste their time doing work again that has already been done
2019-01-24 14:07
Thinking isn't doing work, most people can think on their own without it being considered work. You're literally saying "Why would I have an opinion with other people already have opinions?"
2019-01-24 14:09
thinking isnt working, okay, have fun working in trumps steel mills.
2019-01-24 14:10
You just disagreed with yourself. I'm not a trump fan. Trump doesn't have any steel mills. Not a single part of that post wasn't retarded.
2019-01-24 14:11
thats because it was bait
2019-01-24 14:11
"I say something stupid and then call it bait when someone points it out."
2019-01-24 14:14
i tried to make it as low quality bait as i could
2019-01-24 14:16
And what do intelligent people use to come to a conclusion? It surely can't be multiple sources with data and research backing it up right? Because that would be absolutely preposterous :)
2019-01-24 14:08
there is no point in me forming my own opinion of what the words far right and far left should be. there is a consensus about what these words mean and if you mean something different then say it in a different way.
2019-01-24 14:04
If you think defining political parties is useless then why the fuck are you even arguing with me when that's the entire fucking base of my original argument. Can you not read?
2019-01-24 14:06
your argument was that racists can be far left and you have yet to show anything relevant to that claim
2019-01-24 14:08
I did, you just refused to see it.
2019-01-24 14:12
all you did is show me racist black people, not far left racist people.
2019-01-24 14:13
>The definition of the group you stand behind has absolutely no relevance to what you actually believe. yes, it does. if you are a catholic, then you actually believe in god. if you dont, youre not a catholic. of course, you can not believe and act like you do, but what does that matter to me.
2019-01-24 13:58
You're still just proving my point, no one actually believes exactly what the political parties they claim to be believe. Thats why for the 3rd fucking time my original claim Political parties are malleable and useless.
2019-01-24 14:00
its pretty fucking ironic that you seem so opposed to group think and yet insist on putting people in boxes like far right and far left
2019-01-24 14:06
Thats the exact opposite of what i'm doing, you fail to comprehend even the simplest pieces of my point. I don't think i've ever argued with someone less capable of making a rational thought before.
2019-01-24 14:08
you are not making any fucking points
2019-01-24 14:08
You haven't made a single point for the past 10 fucking posts, am I just supposed to start bringing up random topics?
2019-01-24 14:10
no youre supposed to show me a far left racist person
2019-01-24 14:10
I'm not going to go in circles with you. All you have done is ignore every post and point i've made and ask the same questions over again whilst copy pasting someone else's opinion. I've already provided you and another person with the answers your looking for, if you don't want to see it I can't make you. Obviously you're going to ignore it again and refuse to be wrong.
2019-01-24 14:13
you literally have not shown me 1 case where someone showed both racist and far left viewpoints.
2019-01-24 14:14
Although it frequently engages in armed protests of alleged police brutality, non-racist, left wing members of the original Black Panther Party of the 1960s and 1970s have rejected the new Panthers as a “black racist hate group” and contested their hijacking of the Panther name and symbol.
2019-01-24 13:50
This is the most irrelevant post i've ever seen in my life. Who gives a shit about what the original group thinks? That is completely irrelevant onto rather the new group is racist and left wing or not.
2019-01-24 13:52
what left wing policies do they have?
2019-01-24 13:53
still waiting....
2019-01-24 14:17
#47
s1mple | 
United Kingdom ez4swag 
->says to be racist is far right ->democrats helped create the KKK nt, brainwashed
2019-01-24 13:03
#51
 | 
United Kingdom xTheDeadPixel 
-> Doesn't understand that Democrats of 1865 is Republican of today.
2019-01-24 13:06
So if you were racist in 1865 then you were automatically democrat? The new black panthers were a racist political party that largely believed blacks were superior to whites, they were a democratic party. Black lives matter is a racist movement again; it's largely a democratic party.
2019-01-24 13:07
#54
s1mple | 
United Kingdom ez4swag 
+1
2019-01-24 13:13
What kind of backwards logic is that? No, being racist did not automatically mean you are democrat. You might as well say being Asian means you know martial arts. But the democratic party back then was the party on the side of slavery. Then after the civil war the people that still wanted states rights joined the republican party because it was in power and the sides naturally transitioned from there. NBP is condemed by the vast majority of people on the left. BLM is not a racist movement, there may be individuals within the movement that hold resentment toward white people, but they are once again the minority.
2019-01-24 19:08
Well you literally said being racist automatically makes you a republican and if the republican party in 1865 was then the democratic party, then if you were racist then you would automatically be a democrat. You act like i'm the idiot when i'm using your exact fucking logic. It is a racist movement, not a single person in the movement accepts the fact that anyone can be treated differently because of their skin color not just black people. Saying other people are inherently better off is racist. Being a minority has zero relevance. If your one of those morons who think white people can't experience racism because they're the majority, your wrong. People like to say its not racism its prejudice but racism falls into prejudice and those people are fucking idiots rac·ism noun prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior..
2019-01-25 06:26
Explain how in any way i said that. You stated that Dems helped create KKK. I stated that the Dem party of then was far-right and that after the civil war the sides transitioned. YOU are the one inferring some kind of general automation of party siding based on whether someone is racist or not. Did I reject the fact that NBP is racist and made of people that align themselves with the Dem party? No. Understand the difference between parties and ideology.
2019-01-25 06:54
I didn't state that dems helped create the KKK. You said racism as the definition of far right. "racist and populist Freikorps paramilitary culture. Literally the definition of far-right." I was simply saying that racism doesn't fall into any political party, any political party can have racist members.
2019-01-25 06:57
Sorry, wasn't paying attention to who posted what. But even so, you're the one that assumed that is what I meant. I never said that being racist automatically aligns you with one certain party.
2019-01-25 10:09
#53
s1mple | 
United Kingdom ez4swag 
don't know if you're american, but the reason right wing is on the rise is because of left wing hysteria and freedom of speech -> racism (especially white racism being singled out on media platforms like Twitter as being allowed). With blatant racism being thrown in your face as acceptable by many news outlets in America, it's to be expected that some will lash out. This isn't so of Muslims, is it? Both sides are retarded imo. Stop mass hysteria and people putting their feelings against "whites", and there would be less worry or anger in America. We need to come together, not keep dividing one another.
2019-01-24 13:13
#244
 | 
United States jew_cuck 
but when did that switch happen? literally all the way up to the 20th century you see the democrats being the racist ones, they were the ones that tried to destroy the civil right movement it was a democrat that didnt allow blacks into little rock central high even after a court case that decided they were allowed to be there and a republican president that sent the national guard to escort the students in, as well as republicans being the ones fighting for womens rights. as well as even the first black senator, govenor, and all of the republicans who voted on bills related to civil rights and giving blacks rights in the 60s voted yes, while it was the democrats who tried to stall it. but there is racism on the right but saying that is the defininng factor of the right is just ignorant.
2019-01-25 16:14
#17
 | 
Brazil BanMeIfYouCan 
young turks not trying to push their agenda pick one
2019-01-24 11:10
That is true but what they are headlining comes from a study with proven facts. I would ignore most of what they say and just take in the research results.
2019-01-24 11:16
You do realize that cherry picked facts can be used to promote a false narrative? For example is it factually accurate to say that, Africans have far lower IQ than north Europeans? Yes. If you just present this data point without actually explaining the context and reasons behind this difference, you can easily use it to push a narrative that some races are inferior and less intelligent, which obviously is false as the reasons behind IQ differences isn't racial but has to do with your environment etc. So defending TYT for using a factually accurate headline is moronic, since they always leave out important context to push a false narrative.
2019-01-24 11:44
#48
 | 
United Kingdom xTheDeadPixel 
Oh they "always" leave out important context? Funny, I've never once heard them talk about something without deep diving into all the details. If something requires further explanation, they do so. If someone on the left does something wrong, they call them out on it. When talking about Tulsi Gabbards previous stance on LGBTs they did not leave anything out. They then also gave information on her voting record since then. Context is the one thing they deal with in abundance my friend.
2019-01-24 13:03
> I've never once heard them talk about something without deep diving into all the details. AHAHAHAHAHAHHGAHAHAHHDSAHGFDSHG FDZFEDGFEFDGGFDSGFD Literally ROFL. Dude DO YOU EVER listen to ANYONE who has a different point of view on ANY topic? TYT does this basically 99% of the videos they do, especially when the video is related to race or terrorism. They constantly leave out IMPORTANT CONTEXT to push a narrative, and this is basically the case in EVERY SINGLE police shooting video they do. Here are just couple examples of good breakdowns how TYT leave out context or just outright misrepresent reality to push a narrative: youtube.com/watch?v=_So93w0A4g4 youtube.com/watch?v=tFGg77VCSM8 Btw, similar videos could be made out of basically any video they do that is related to race or terrorism and I can do a breakdown if you actually care about the facts. Now after watching these videos, PLEASE tell me how I'm wrong.
2019-01-24 13:30
Btw, have you watched the videos or not? If you REALLY care about facts, I suggest you watch them and rethink your position on TYT. Will you do that or are you a tribalist moron just like Trump supporters who won't change their position no matter what facts are presented?
2019-01-26 13:54
Well your example is very bad. If anything it works against you. "Africans have a lower iq than Europeans" is factually true, but that sentence is not inferring any genetic reasons. It does not give any reasons whatsoever, so there is nothing wrong with that statement. There is no narrative. It is only if someone tries to say that the statement says something it does not, that it becomes pushing a narrative or lying.
2019-01-24 14:11
> but that sentence is not inferring any genetic reasons A claim is made that 2 different racial groups have different IQ. What is the obvious implication of that headline? That race determines your IQ. > It does not give any reasons whatsoever, so there is nothing wrong with that statement. This is the exact problem. It presents a fact, and doesn't present any context so the only possible interpretation based on the headline is that the defining factor is race, meanwhile the evidence doesn't support that. If you still don't understand that facts can be used to mislead, I'll give you another example. A commonly used tactic is to mention facts about a case in the headline that aren't in any way relevant to form a narrative. For example "a black muslim refugee rapes a white girl" Meanwhile it might be factually true that the perpetrator was a black muslim refugee, the headline is designed to imply that the reason behind this is because he is: Black, muslim and a refugee. even if there is no evidence that the perpetrator's identity played any role in the attack. If you still don't understand that facts can be used in a misleading way to push a narrative, Idk how to explain it to you tbh. > It is only if someone tries to say that the statement says something it does not, that it becomes pushing a narrative or lying. It's very clear that you don't read a lot of media. The media does this constantly. They might actively argue that this is definitely the reason, but they'll mention facts completely unrelated to the case to IMPLY this is why something took place etc. "white cop shoots a black man" Implication: The cop probably shot the black guy because the cop is a racist "MAGA hat wearing white men harass a muslim lady" Implication: Trump supporters hate muslims and white men are a problem etc etc etc.
2019-01-24 14:59
I never said that facts can be misleading, they can be misleading for many reasons. My point is where the problem is. "a black muslim refugee rapes a white girl" This statement you wrote has implications, and if every time something like this happens it is written like this, then it starts to paint a narrative due to incomplete information. It is a very simplistic statement, with no context, and gives information in order to push the reader to think about certain things. The thing is if you start going down the direction of the solution is to change the statement, then you go into big problems for other reasons. Instead a change in the reader is needed. That is my point.
2019-01-24 16:17
Propaganda 101
2019-01-24 19:11
What?
2019-01-24 19:26
What you explained above, the basic model of propaganda. Using minimal information buzzwords to draw a reaction.
2019-01-24 19:32
Yea that's true.
2019-01-24 19:35
Btw I see you've been active here commenting but I still see no rebuttals to the arguments I presented to you. Are you going to man the fuck up or not? Pussy. If you're going to publicly take a stance, at least be prepared to defend it.
2019-01-25 15:19
Because you're arguments are all very backwards and you seem to be so shook up by your '30% of attacks to 1.1% of population' statement. When you understand how your preconceived notions about muslims affect your viewing of that statement, then we'll talk. Until then I'll leave you to rack your brain over this. The majority of countries that state Islam as their national religion or have a Muslim majority population, do not subscribe to Islamic law or Sharia law as the law of the land. Those countries are much more liberal than their counterparts. Whilst yes, the Quran does include more violent passages than the Bible, the Bible does still hold violent passages and messages, similar to those of the Quran i.e. Worshippers of false idols are put to death, St Paul saying women should not have equal authority to men, Destroying the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for their sexual promiscuity, etc. So, thought experiment. What do you think Western civilization would be like today if the Bible or Torrah were used to decree the law of the land? Really think about the societal impacts of enforcing archaic laws upon your people, generation after generation.
2019-01-25 16:26
> Because you're arguments are all very backwards and you seem to be so shook up by your '30% of attacks to 1.1% of population' statement. Ok care to point out why I'm wrong? Just saying my arguments are bad doesn't refute them. I can say the exact same shit about the arguments you've made and It wouldn't in anyway refute them. And yes, I do find it incredible that a single group would commit such a significant amount of terror. If any person is 30 times more likely to commit any crime. ESPECIALLY a terror attack, you should immediately try to address the reasons behind that and not try to downplay that. > . When you understand how your preconceived notions about muslims affect your viewing of that statement So basically you're accusing me of being a Islamophobe or whatever term you guys have made up. WHO could have seen that coming? LMAO. Have you ever realized that YOU have preconceived about muslims and that's the ONLY reason why you're desperate to deny the problems that exist in their community? You have the preconceived notion that muslims as a group are just like any other group when it comes to terrorism, and the facts go completely against that, and I don't necessarily blame you for believing that. The muslim apologist propaganda coming from the media is so prevalent that it's easy to believe Islam is just like any other religion, and like 5 years ago, I used to think that as well but I never actively argued Islam was a religion of peace or any other bullshit. Then I studied the issue, which you clearly haven't. Here's the reality: All groups aren't equal and all belief systems aren't equal. My position on Islam and the muslim community is based on factual statistics and polling data and on average, muslims across the world hold disgusting beliefs, whether it's the treatment of apostates, gays, religious law (sharia) etc. > do not subscribe to Islamic law or Sharia law as the law of the land. Most muslims across the world support Sharia law. Source: pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-musli.. Here are the countries that have either some form of Sharia law, or complete Sharia law: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application_of_Isl.. So basically every majority muslim country in the world has Sharia law in some form or the other: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_world#/medi.. > Those countries are much more liberal than their counterparts. What? > the Bible does still hold violent passages and messages, Why are you bringing up Christianity? Oh yeah, to draw a false equivalence and push the narrative that Islam is no different from any other religion. Christianity has literally no relevance to this situation. Christianity used to be very violent in the past yes, but it has reformed and all the violent passages have been denounced. Same hasn't happened with Islam. Why are you presenting new arguments when you haven't refuted my old ones? Like do you think you can just weasel your way out always when you've been pinned down for your bullshit? > What do you think Western civilization would be like today if the Bible or Torrah were used to decree the law of the land? Has literally no relevance to Islam in any way. And I have no obligation to address completely irrelevant points when you've dodged every argument presented to you. I will address this immediately when you address my arguments, which you wont do as you'd have to admit you're wrong. I have no agenda to defend Christianity and I do acknowledge the problems Christianity has caused. I actually care about the facts. Same can't be said about you and Islam.
2019-01-26 13:53
I never argued against your numbers, just that the ones you choose to use show a stark contrast to what I know. The original point of this thread was to say you shouldn't generalize people. You cherry picked the "most muslims support sharia" stat in the comment above but didn't care enough that right under that it states that most do not support the passages about infidels. I never claim Islam to be peaceful, I acknowledge the bad. What I do know is this. I went to school with a boy from Kosovo. I have worked with men from Morocco. I have witnessed nationalist marches against a muslim community in London that only a few weeks prior were giving the clothes off their backs for the victims of the Grenfell Tower fire. Whereas you (if you are Isreali) I would assume have experienced a very different kind. I do not dispute your numbers or facts, I'm just saying that there are good and bad people all over this world and the way you use your numbers misrepresents that.
2019-01-27 05:21
> You cherry picked the "most muslims support sharia" stat LOL how is that "cherry picking"? When majority of one group approves of something horrific, it's strike one and you're out. You wouldn't EVER defend Nazis like this. If let's say 60% of people who identity as Nazis believed whites are a master race, meanwhile only 30% of them supported violently oppressing other races and 25% supported just outright kill all other races, would you make this same argument? LMAO. "Yeah majority might believe whites are the master race, but only 20% support killing all other races. Why didn't you mention that?" Yes, majority of muslims don't support executing apostates. Did I ever imply that was the case? Btw, If majority of muslims did support that, holy fuck would that be radical. Also, it's not really a great argument that what, only 20% of muslims support killing apostates? LOL. EXTREMELY low bar. Also if you look at the numbers, substantial amount of muslims do support killing apostates. How the fuck DO YOU NOT FIND THAT ALARMING? > I never claim Islam to be peaceful, I acknowledge the bad. I never said you claimed Islam to be peaceful. What I did say was that you're trying DOWNPLAY the obvious problem of terrorism originating from the muslim community and that's exactly what you're doing. You think Islam is just another religion and is just like any other religion when it comes to violence at this point in time, meanwhile that is so far detached from reality. > I went to school with a boy from Kosovo. I have worked with men from Morocco. I And one of my best childhood friends was called Mustafa, refugee from Iraq. It's very evident that your Islam apologism is coming from a place of emotion rather than rational. > I have witnessed nationalist marches against a muslim community in London And why do you think people are willing to participate in those marches? Because everyone is a racist? Or because people actually have legitimate concerns about Islam? UK police has for decades not gone after muslim grooming gangs because PEOPLE LIKE YOU would accuse them of being racist. > if you are Isreali I'm from northern Europe but I'm a supporter of Israel. There is only 1 thing the world can agree on and that is to hate on Israel, even when they don't deserve it. > I do not dispute your numbers or facts, I'm just saying that there are good and bad people all over this world You did EXACTLY that here and didn't even realize. Saying there are "good and bad people all over the world" implies that all belief systems are equal and there isn't a problem specifically with Islam. MEANWHILE we have the numbers and statistics to prove that Islam out of all the major religions RIGHT NOW is by far the most violent and causes disproportionate amount of violence. Btw, you're literally helping your worst enemies, the far-right. Why do you think far-right has risen to prominence lately in Europe? BECAUSE people are sick and tired of being told they're racist for simply expressing concern over what is going on in the muslim community. If you dare to criticize Islam in anyway, you're automatically maligned as a racist. If you want the far-right to lose, something I'd love to see happen as well, STOP DOWNPLAYING AND OBFUSCATING when it comes to Islam. THE ONLY reason why far-right has gained traction is because of how the left wing lectures anyone critical of Islam. Left wing goes after Christianity constantly hardcore for being anti-gay, anti-woman etc. and I go after Christianity as well for those reasons. But when someone goes after Islam, a religion that is far more oppressive and fundamentalist than Christianity right now and deserves far more scrutiny, suddenly it's not ok and you're a racist. Left wing has gone to extreme lengths and even made up ridiculous shit like wearing a hijab is now progressive, meanwhile it's blatantly anti-woman oppressive aspect of Islam and there is this notion that Islam is somehow pro-woman and progressive religion. Like what the actual FUCK?
2019-01-29 17:59
Oh and I bring up Christianity because it's not a false equivalence. The Tudors and particularly Henry VIII is a subject that an entire 2 years of history is dedicated to in English schools. The Enlightenment was brought about by the remains of the Protestant Reformation. The separation of the crown and church played a huge part in that. It's relevant because human pshyce and social thought are intertwined. When you enforce a rule for long enough it becomes embedded into society. When we were ruled by monarchies everyone thought the same way, era after era. The separation ushered in a wave of free thought. To summarize, the message I'm trying to convey is this: The issue is not Islam itself. Islam, like many other beliefs that people die for, is just a cog in the machine, but the problem as a whole is authoritrian control, geopolitics and the reliance on the people to not question the status quo.
2019-01-27 14:08
> I never said that facts can be misleading Ok good so what is the disagreement? My whole argument is that facts can be used in a misleading way, and therefor your point about TYT using a fact based study isn't a good one, because they're intentionally leaving out important context and are trying to push a narrative that isn't supported by the facts MEANWHILE quoting a fact based study. So they're basically cherry picking facts in order to push a false narrative. > if you start going down the direction of the solution is to change the statement First of all, you could do that. You could use a headline that isn't trying to promote a narrative and is as close to neutral as possible. You could have a headline like "analyzing a report on domestic terrorism in the US in 2018" etc. But that obviously doesn't generate as many clicks and doesn't push the far-left anti-white narrative and the best part is that TYT will deny that they're trying to promote this narrative. If you're going to promote a narrative like most media does, follow these steps: 1. Be honest about your narrative 2. Provide full context always EVEN while promoting a narrative
2019-01-25 15:18
> Every extremist attack in the US in 2018 was committed by the right-wing. And what is the argument? What is the purpose behind focusing on very narrow timeline? To push your far-left narrative? Of course it is. Here are the facts: Muslims represent 1% of the US population, meanwhile are responsible for around 30% of all terror between 2008-2016. Now if we go all the way back to 9/11, gg your narrative. Source: vox.com/world/2017/10/2/16396612/las-veg.. Meanwhile it is true that most terror attacks in the US are right wing, the fact is that muslims commit BY FAR the most terror per capita out of any other group in the US. If the US muslim population doubled just to 2% of the population and the terrorism rate in the muslim community stayed the same, most terror attacks in the US would be muslim ones. The only reason why right wing terrorism is more prevalent in the US than muslim terrorism, is because there are so few muslims in the US meanwhile there are plenty of right wingers. > The people that are so scared of the big bad Muslim man are the same as the very people they detest. Not even close. A muslim in the US is far more likely to be a terrorist than a right winger, so statistically you should be more scared when a muslim is present than a right winger. This is a statistical fact. And facts famously don't care about your feelings. > Apply that to the Muslim man. No one seriously argues all muslims are terrorists. Complete strawman. > I just blew your mind, didn't I? With your stupidity, yes. It's very evident that you've never even attempted to find counter points to your argument, as your BS is so easily refutable. Btw, TYT is the most garbage shit on the internet. It's equivalent to Infowars.
2019-01-24 11:25
Thorough argumentation, good job!
2019-01-24 11:32
#43
 | 
United Kingdom xTheDeadPixel 
And your point is...what exactly? Okay, Muslims account for 30% of attacks in that 8 year period. How many of those were committed by migrants or people with citizenship? Equate in that fact and, well, gg your narrative. And that is still only 30%, so I'll leave you to fill in the blanks on what that 70% is. And yes, plenty of people do seriously argue that all Muslims are terrorists, because believe it or not, there are people that see an Arab and immediately think that. See the thing about statistics is they can be manipulated. You claim a Muslim in the US is far more likely to be a terrorist, especially when you get into the debate of what "terrorism" actually means. You can easily class a mass shooting as terrorism. Of the 74 terror attacks and plots between 2000-2018, 37 were committed by Muslims, which puts the statistic at 50% of attacks/plots. Okay, seems scary, right? But how about we calculate the number of Muslims in the country vs number of attacks/plots? 37 attacks/plots. 3.45 million Muslims residing in US. Puts statistical probabilty of being attacked by a Muslim at 0.001% So let's factor in mass shootings, which like I said can be classed as terrorism. Between 2000-2018 there were 118 mass shootings (and that is only counting the ones with Wikipedia pages about them). Only 6 of which were committed by Muslims. Making the statistical probability of being shot by a Muslim 0.0001%. You see now why numbers can be misleading?
2019-01-24 12:43
> And your point is...what exactly? Okay, Muslims account for 30% of attacks in that 8 year period. The point is that a muslim is FAR more likely to be a terrorist than a right winger (it's not even close btw), refuting the Islam apologist narrative you're trying to promote by using misleading statistics about terrorism. > How many of those were committed by migrants or people with citizenship? Equate in that fact and, well, gg your narrative How is it at all relevant what their immigration status is? Muslim is a muslim regardless if he/she is a citizen or in the country illegally. I know you're desperate to shift the topic into immigration as your narrative has been completely debunked and you can't refute the the arguments presented. My narrative is that muslims as an ethnic group cause a disproportionate amount of terror in the US, and therefor people that are worried about Islamic terror aren't inherently motivated by racism, xenophobia or anything of the sort BUT the actual reality which is that muslims have an incredibly high terror rate per capita. The legal status of muslims is completely irrelevant in this context. > And that is still only 30%, And I already explained the reason why it's "only" 30%. Muslims are around 1% of the US population but commit around 30% of terrorism. If you don't understand simple math, to put it mildly, there is a massive problem with terrorism coming from the muslim community. > so I'll leave you to fill in the blanks on what that 70% Had you taken a look at my source, you would have seen that the rest is right wing terror and left wing terror, majority being right wing terrorism. I have no problem acknowledging facts and I do acknowledge that right wing terror has been on the rise lately in the US. I actually care about the facts and don't deny them, as my only loyalty is to the truth. You do seem to have a problem with acknowledging the problem of radicalization in the muslim community though. > plenty of people do seriously argue that all Muslims are terrorists The fact that you even believe that there are "plenty" of people that ACTUALLY think literally every single muslim is a terrorist means you're incredibly brainwashed. Here's a *NEWSFLASH*- Someone writing something edgy in order to trigger a response doesn't mean the person actually holds that belief. > See the thing about statistics is they can be manipulated. Ah so you were fine with citing statistics originally to make the claim about all terror incidents being right wing in 2018, but now that statistics are being used against you, now you're trying to claim the statistics are bogus and shouldn't be trusted. > You claim a Muslim in the US is far more likely to be a terrorist Yes, backed up by statistical data. Also a right winger is more likely to be a terrorist than a left winger according to those statistics. > You can easily class a mass shooting as terrorism. Factually incorrect. Whether something is officially declared terrorism has to do with the motive of the perpetrator. US government description of terrorism: Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." Whether something is declared terrorism isn't just random, which you seem to suggest. > Of the 74 terror attacks and plots between 2000-2018, 37 were committed by Muslims, What is your source for this information and does this include foiled plots? Not that I'm necessarily disputing the statistics, but the source I linked has completely different data. > Okay, seems scary, right? I don't make judgement based on emotion. > Puts statistical probabilty of being attacked by a Muslim at 0.001% Who disputes that? I never said or implied that you're very likely to ever be killed by a muslim terrorist. You're creating a complete strawman. > So let's factor in mass shootings, which like I said can be classed as terrorism. That is factually inaccurate, as I already explained. It's very obvious that you lack understanding when it comes to this topic. > Only 6 of which were committed by Muslims. 1. Why are you narrowing it down to shootings only? Shooting isn't the only way to cause terrorism. 2. Even with these cherry picked numbers, muslims are over represented in mass shootings. It's very telling that even after cherry picking a data point, you still end up reinforcing my argument, which is that muslims cause terror at disproportionate rates. > You see now why numbers can be misleading? I'm very well aware why numbers can be misleading, but the numbers I've presented aren't misleading in any way and I refute every single argument you put forward here. Now try to do the same. You won't be able to.
2019-01-24 13:20
#58
 | 
United Kingdom xTheDeadPixel 
"Muslims represent 1% of the US population, meanwhile are responsible for around 30% of all terror between 2008-2016. Now if we go all the way back to 9/11, gg your narrative." You are talking about US population. Meaning legal status is relevant. Please understand your own words before you try to back-pedal.
2019-01-24 13:23
> You are talking about US population. Meaning legal status is relevant. The data I cited was for domestic terrorism only, and you would have seen that had you looked it up. Not only that, but the reality is that foreign terror plots on US soil are very rare, so even if the data had included them, the statistics would have been similar anyways. Now how does it feel to know that your whole worldview has crumbled and you're such a fucking pussy to even admit you were wrong? I'm waiting for rebuttals to my arguments btw. And of course I won't see them as you can't refute my arguments. Like please if you're going to make a topic like this, at least attempt to defend your position. I've gone out of my way to address points that you've made that are completely irrelevant to the argument, meanwhile you're avoiding addressing anything lmao. Way too fucking easy to demolish these muslim apologists. It's the same shit every time. A far-left brainwashed moron tries to make a point, gets countered, and then flees with tail in between his legs. How does it feel to be such a coward?
2019-01-24 13:45
#32
NiKo | 
France LauraS 
"White supremacists were responsible for the greater majority of the killings, which is typically the case" In this quote, they failed to show the most important part where they list that this is only applicable in the US. (I know further through the video they explain this, and in no way do I condone, support or want to hide these acts) His introductory statement is misleading. storymaps.esri.com/stories/terrorist-att.. Pretty important to show the rest of the world here. He fairly blatantly misleads the audience in the introduction. that's why I think this link is justified. (I don't agree with the unjust murder of anyone) Hopefully, I'm not misinterpreting what they're trying to do/say.
2019-01-24 11:32
#40
 | 
United States flybywire12 
bump
2019-01-24 11:55
#41
 | 
World ///fuck 
"The radical left"
2019-01-24 12:11
Not every muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is muslim.
2019-01-24 13:06
Ezekiel 25: 17. "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."
2019-01-24 13:34
How are all of your trucks of peace and tolerance and acid attacks of love doing in the uk bud? Sounds like the uk is deeply fucked. But if ur liberally retarded and cant see that. Then be my guest keep on doing what ur doing.
2019-01-24 13:59
AXAXAXAXAX remember Weather Underground, remember that guy who shot Republican congressmen? NT
2019-01-24 14:09
Yeah, that was 2017. And I condone that too.
2019-01-24 19:16
First month isnt even over.
2019-01-24 14:10
TYT axaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxaxa
2019-01-24 14:19
#129
JW | 
Sweden XperienZeD 
Lies
2019-01-24 14:20
I miss the old left, leftists of today are getting more and more radical, actually many have become insane since Trump took office.
2019-01-24 14:20
I miss the days when you could disagree with someone's political views and still get along :(
2019-01-24 14:22
yeah, common sense is a thing of the past
2019-01-24 14:35
It hasn't disappeared yet, but whenever you try to argue with someone over politics you tend to get grouped with the majority that aren't in line with their own political views. Edit; Which leads to name calling and misrepresentation of your own views and standpoints.
2019-01-24 14:38
Because the mainstream media has painted virtually anyone that isn't on the left as a radical right winger, they are nuts. youtube.com/watch?v=vPDLi4IRZIo
2019-01-24 14:39
Mainstream media is filled with bias towards the right. However, it's not just if you have conservative views. If you don't share the exact same views as them, you're obviously a right winger.
2019-01-24 14:43
You do realise the MSMs also look down on progressives, right? CNN, MSNBC and Politico love to talk trash about Social Democrats
2019-01-25 04:50
You do realise the MSMs also look down on progressives, right? CNN, MSNBC and Politico love to talk trash about Social Democrats
2019-01-25 04:50
I'm not denying that. However, you have to admit that American media tends to have a political bias to either the left or the right. I'll have plenty of time later,so I'll gro through last week's articles on the sites you mentioned and I'll note how much articles talk in a bad way about the left and right.
2019-01-25 07:50
The superiors did a pretty good job in dividing the society even more tbh.
2019-01-24 16:42
You can, if you argue with them IRL. Internet removes a great deal of our empathy, making it tempting to act like asshats towards others. As I see it, this is the main reason for the general rude behaviour on the internet. I also think that the general media and general politician is partly responsible for training people to not talk about facts, but merely try to persuade them by relying on manipulating them via emotions. People copy this behaviour, and multiply it.
2019-01-25 10:57
#136
blameF | 
Europe cArn5 
What "old left"?
2019-01-24 14:28
2019-01-24 14:34
First off that’s not true what so ever and second off killing people isn’t baked into our religion
2019-01-24 14:27
Have you even read the bible?
2019-01-24 19:19
Yes Have you read what the Quran says?
2019-01-24 20:11
Yes. So we both agree both religions push violence on people.
2019-01-25 04:52
No we both agree Islam does
2019-01-25 13:38
Did I argue that? No. All I stated was that you shouldn't make assumptions about people based on religion of choice, what culture they were brought up in, etc.
2019-01-25 14:05
I’m disagreeing that the Bible pushes violence And I will make assumptions because I’m human that’s what we do and look at the Middle East and how fucked up it is and what religion are they?
2019-01-25 15:10
The more you look into islam the more you see how fucked up it is, also there is no turning point for these guys, theyre in way to deep and bound to do this shit forever, its so sad but what can you do.
2019-01-24 14:33
What a shitty bait rofl
2019-01-24 14:38
horrible bait you're just plain stupid
2019-01-24 14:49
<3
2019-01-24 14:51
There is no such thing as "i*****c extremist". I**** teaches its followers to beh**d infidels. All m****ms will turn into extremists as soon as they become a majority in the west.
2019-01-24 14:53
Read any bible verse about the worshipping of false idols.
2019-01-24 19:25
What do you mean by that?
2019-01-24 20:55
An infidel is someone that does not believe in the word of Allah. The bible states death as a punishment for worshipping a false god. Just as there are Christians that ignore all the bad parts of the bible, there are muslims that ignore the bad parts of the Quran. Extremism is just a word used for people that subscribe to the full teachings of their preferred religion.
2019-01-25 03:46
There are 35 capital offences, in addition to murder, described in the Old Testament. As these are no longer capital offences, christians say it is inconsistent to preserve murder alone as a capital crime.
2019-01-25 13:51
Islamist propaganda shouldn't be on HLTV
2019-01-24 14:54
Rightist propaganda shouldn't be on HLTV
2019-01-24 15:10
Political propaganda shouldn't be on HLTV.
2019-01-24 15:11
Non rightist political propaganda don't kill people, sorry.
2019-01-24 15:13
Never said it did. I just think that politics have no place here.
2019-01-24 15:18
off topic
2019-01-24 15:27
In general. Most HLTV users are incapable of discussing topics like this one without resorting to insulting the other side or repeating their own points without even attempting to counter their opponents views. Don't get me wrong, there are definitely outliers, i'm not stating all users are this way.
2019-01-24 15:32
I had multiple quite interesting political debate over here, even by replying to obvious baits or people replying to mine. If people get insulting, just zap them. Here on hltv, you don't have to rely on karma appealing post to be read. And so you can state unpopular opinions and debate of it. I like to see how foreigners stands relative to my surrounding. Also, it is interesting to see what they speak about, aka what is on their news. For instance, and even if we need to take in count there is a serious rigthist bias on hltv population, I was able to say Bolsonaro would be a serious candidate meanwhile french media took it as a joke month before their campaign. So, you shouldn't ask for censorship because of low quality trolls, just ignore them bro. Because among all the baits, you can see tendencies or even real gold nugget about other countries point of view.
2019-01-24 15:44
That's true, and if it was just a few trolls and mostly mature people who are able to properly discuss topics I wouldn't have an issue. However, you mention (and rightfully so) that censorship shouldn't be brought upon the users of HLTV. I agree, but wouldn't you consider it censorship if they only ban the views of far right? I myself do not agree with them in the slightest regarding most, if not all points. However, they should still be able to have a voice if everyone else is allowed to. As long as it stays civil, I feel like everyone should be free to express their own views and opinions on certain subjects. Banning one side, but allowing the other side to do as they please would be considered censorship, no?
2019-01-24 15:50
It was a joke related to OP's post.
2019-01-24 15:53
My bad :)
2019-01-24 15:54
+111111
2019-01-24 15:43
I agree with that, though I haven't seen any of that lately.
2019-01-24 21:05
#172
 | 
Netherlands @Deji 
LOL! Look at all those politicians
2019-01-24 15:36
#181
 | 
Ireland lander1337 
Yeah, the extreme right is fucking wrong. We already knew that though didn't we? Extreme left isn't killing anybody, they're just killing society as a fucking whole, making every day "things" a controversial. Both extremes are fucking bad, we know this. Socially I'm pretty right. Financially I'm pretty left. Overall, according to that one test that was posted a lot on hltv a few months back, I'm center-left. And I do believe in deporting ****ILLEGAL***** immigrants and protecting our borders a little bit better than we're doing now, making sure people that want to live here know our values etc. But I also believe students shouldn't be in thousands of dollars/euros of debt after finishing school., for example. Coming back on topic. Far right = fucking bad. Far left = Awful too. OP trying to make it seem that far right being bad is a new thing or whatever is ridiculous. And if that isn't his goal, then I don't get what the hell he's doing. Trying his very best to act smart, that's one thing.
2019-01-24 16:31
It's funny cause in Europe they also come up with these kind of statistics.... but when you think about it, when was the last time a right-wing nutcase butchered people? Breivik was the last I remember... Yet if you look for Islamic terrorism, every year there are atleast a couple of cases in most EU countries. In some of those European statistics, drawing a swastika, burning something down, is also counted also a form of 'terrorism'.... That's how they fill up their numbers. But in reality, there's just no comparaion, Islamic terrorism is far more deadlier....
2019-01-24 17:06
Fake news
2019-01-24 17:19
#210
REZ | 
Sweden katt1n 
Right wing in the US: 79 kills between 2008 and 2016 Islamist movements in the middle east and northern Africa: 136 kills since January the 12th nt try again
2019-01-24 20:49
Almost every spree shooting in the US was perpetrated by left wing but some like the FT Hood shooting are classified as workplace violence. The only political assassination attempt in recent times was perpetrated by James Hodgekinson against republicans. Most of the murders in the US are urban gang bangers are left wing. If modern gun laws jut banned gun sales to democrats the US murder rate would plummet. This of course does not include the race riots in Baltimore, Ferguson, Oakland etc.... Nor the threats to public infrastructure from left wing movements like Occupy. The left wing are the single most dangerous peril to the human race. All one needs to do is read the not fake news but purposeful misinformation posted over and over and over again above. They kill people by the thousands every year, parts of Chicago, LA, Baltimore etc are more congruent with third world war zones than some of the wealthiest cities in the history of man.
2019-01-25 04:11
#225
 | 
United States _ATaXiA_ 
Opinions are not facts citation needed. Also i lived in both L.A and Baltimore between 1985-2015, neither as a whole were "Third world war zones". With every town in the US you will always have the "Bad side of town" that doesn't make an entire city/county a third world war zone, take the tin foil hat off and go outside and get some sunlight.
2019-01-25 08:20
Urban gang bangers usually don't give a fuck about politics. I think you view this whole deal in black and white. Turn up contrast :) To be fair, you post has zero content but your own opinion, which you as already mentioned above, wrongly present as factual.
2019-01-25 10:50
#219
 | 
United States AN_yB_DETIAB 
The young turks deny the Armenian genocide.
2019-01-25 04:52
cuz they are young "TURKS" AHAHAHAHAHAH...ok i'll shut up pls no "nt erdogan"
2019-01-27 09:12
As if politics has just one axis. It has one axis for every political issue. Newscasters are trained to act like they are speaking to 14-15 year olds. Are you older than that, leave them and their simplification of reality alone.
2019-01-25 11:01
The Young Turks? The far-leftists that deny the Armenian genocide? Definitely the kind of people I would trust if I was a mindless leftist.
2019-01-25 15:24
The same people who deny the Armenian Genocide? Yeah, they aren’t really a trustworthy source
2019-01-25 16:27
The Young Cucks omegaLUL // Armenian genocide btw. But leftists are known for denying facts and logic for their own gain. Hint: Communism.
2019-01-25 16:31
Knowing changes nothing "I just blew your mind didn't I"
2019-01-26 13:48
Login or register to add your comment to the discussion.