Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

I haven't seen actual hate speech from angelo. Perhaps ask him to check out and quote links.

And you also haven't seen any convincing evidence of Trump being in bed with Russia, right? Pardon me if I don't consider persuading you a top priority.

angelo's a hate merchant; what should be done about him is something reasonable people can disagree over, but the nature of his posts aren't.

I investigated fraud for a number of years and I don't see anything conclusive about Trump but people are entitled to different opinions about this. Media propagation in itself to announce every facet of any investigation could actually backfire after a while even if a smoking gun is found (Hence the story of the boy who cried wolf).

You can always call for links and also produce links of your own. Free speech is all about exposure to what we also disagree with. It would be boring if we all held identical opinions.

 

[Warpoet]

The issue isn't that his opinions are different, it's that they're so fucking asinine, even those who are ideologically aligned with him think he's a tit. And it's just the same shit over and over and over.

Matter of fact, so is this exchange. Bottom line: we'd all be better off without him around, but the mods won't do anything so the only solution is not to engage him, but tell him he's a twat and call it a day.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ehe... how is that connected? I'd say fake news sites spreading negative lies about Muslims are hate sites. How else would you define them? "Creative news"? "Freedom loving news free from truth"?

And censorship is far worse than a bit of hate speech anyway.

I agree completely.

The problem is that if you ban media for fake new we'll end up with no media. Also where societies such as Singapore determine what is right and what we end up with is a certain amount of fake news but this will be authentic fake news

I've never said we should ban them. We should fact check them. You know... everybody. And when somebody makes the mistake of sharing fake news, we let them know they've screwed up. But it is cute how some people, even after it's been shown that they've shared fake news, persist. Even though these sites are bizarre in how a warped sense of reality they have.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Ehe... how is that connected? I'd say fake news sites spreading negative lies about Muslims are hate sites. How else would you define them? "Creative news"? "Freedom loving news free from truth"?

And censorship is far worse than a bit of hate speech anyway.

I agree completely.

The problem is that if you ban media for fake new we'll end up with no media. Also where societies such as Singapore determine what is right and what we end up with is a certain amount of fake news but this will be authentic fake news

I've never said we should ban them. We should fact check them. You know... everybody. And when somebody makes the mistake of sharing fake news, we let them know they've screwed up. But it is cute how some people, even after it's been shown that they've shared fake news, persist. Even though these sites are bizarre in how a warped sense of reality they have.

It was not suggested that you did because you clearly are against censorship. True let any comments come out in the open for discussion and on occasion agreement.

Extremist sites take one instance and infer it is the act or intent of many.

At the same time we have differing views.

- - - Updated - - -

The issue isn't that his opinions are different, it's that they're so fucking asinine, even those who are ideologically aligned with him think he's a tit. And it's just the same shit over and over and over.

Matter of fact, so is this exchange. Bottom line: we'd all be better off without him around, but the mods won't do anything so the only solution is not to engage him, but tell him he's a twat and call it a day.

Flattery gets you nowhere

 

[DrZoidberg]

It was not suggested that you did because you clearly are against censorship. True let any comments come out in the open for discussion and on occasion agreement.

But I do agree that we have a problem. The Internet has created a world where idiots feel empowered. There's a persistent idea that every opinion is equally valuable. As if, just because everybody has a vote, everybody deserves getting attention. Ehe.... no.

The fact that somebody like Donald Trump is a president is evidence of that the general public has lost trust in actual experts. We live in a sophistic world today. What matters isn't to be successful. But that you're entertaining and good at formulating yourself. That's an exceedingly dangerous world. The ignorant don't know what it is they don't know.

Let's compare it to another media paradigm shift. Once upon a time radio and movies were new. Fascists and Nazis exploited this to it's fullest, and spread ego massaging lies, and grabbed power. We're right now in a completely analogue world. But instead of TV and radio, it's the Internet.

Angelo has been completely duped of this new style of communication (No, offence Angelo).

What "saved" the world last time was a world war and a realisation that the sophistic demagogues were only just that. Let's hope it won't come to that? I don't think it will though. The Islamic fundamentalist world is not a fun world to inhabit. I think the allure of freedom, no-strings-sex and drunken debauchery is too strong for Islamic fundamentalism to survive in the long run. But that assumes that the West manages to keep their cool long enough for Islam to kill itself (like Christianity did in the West).

Extremist sites take one instance and infer it is the act or intent of many.

Doesn't everybody? We all have to simplify and extrapolate to make sense of the world. That's not the problem. The problem is picking the right information to infer from. And that's where the Dunning-Kruger paradox comes in.

 

[barbos]

So what's new? looks to me that Europe (Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, ....etc) quietly deporting all these "refugees".

 

[angelo]

The issue isn't that his opinions are different, it's that they're so fucking asinine, even those who are ideologically aligned with him think he's a tit. And it's just the same shit over and over and over.

Matter of fact, so is this exchange. Bottom line: we'd all be better off without him around, but the mods won't do anything so the only solution is not to engage him, but tell him he's a twat and call it a day.

Tit, twat? Are you sexually depraved?

 

[Warpoet]

Nah, I've just gotten a bit tired of calling you the standard names, e.g. moron, dipshit, fuckwit, asshat. All perfectly valid though, so you can take your pick.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So what's new? looks to me that Europe (Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, ....etc) quietly deporting all these "refugees".

Oh, for fucks sake. No! We're doing what we intended to do all the time. The alarmists were just wrong. The system is working.

According to UNHCR everybody who has the need has the right to refuge, regardless if they still have their passports or not. That makes illegals dump their passports in the hope as to be able to bullshit their way through. You can think what you will of this system... that's it's slow and whatever. But it is thorough. It's very hard to get residency.

For example, being gay in a country where homosexuality is illegal is grounds for refugee status. But gays in Sweden have complained that there's loads of, well out, Swedish gay men that wouldn't qualify. It's very hard to become a refugee.

A big complaint is that the rules are made for the perfect imaginary refugee. It assumes that the refugee knows the rules in advance and behaves in a way to maximise chances of staying. Well... that ain't going to happen for those most in need. They're fleeing in panic for their lives. Those who best live up to the refugee status are people far away from the epicentre of trouble. Or those that are rich.

So there's loads of genuine refugees who are turned away on stupid technicalities. Yet, the alarmists are hysterical and making shit up about how easy it is. When Trump said he wanted "extreme vetting" he clearly wasn't aware that we already have extreme vetting. The vetting is already absurdly thorough. It was that before the last eight times they made the rules stricter.

http://www.unhcr.org/publications/l...ing-refugee-status-under-1951-convention.html

I remember how we behaved during the Balkan war. How we went out of our way to make it has hard as possible for the refugees to leave ex-Yugolsavia. I remember all the alarmism. All the lies. In hindsight we just behaved disgracefully towards the refugees. For nothing. The Bosnian refugees integrated in no time. There was hardly any problems.

It's the same bullshit now. All the lies about Islam is just lies we tell ourselves because then we don't need to feel bad about giving refugees a refuge.

We did the same thing against the Jews during WW2. It's a fucking disgrace. We're setting a bad precedent if war ever would come to Europe.

In showbiz there's a saying. Be kind to people on the way up. You'll need it on the way down. Well... it's the same in international politics.

 

[whichphilosophy]

But I do agree that we have a problem. The Internet has created a world where idiots feel empowered. There's a persistent idea that every opinion is equally valuable. As if, just because everybody has a vote, everybody deserves getting attention. Ehe.... no.

The fact that somebody like Donald Trump is a president is evidence of that the general public has lost trust in actual experts. We live in a sophistic world today. What matters isn't to be successful. But that you're entertaining and good at formulating yourself. That's an exceedingly dangerous world. The ignorant don't know what it is they don't know.

Let's compare it to another media paradigm shift. Once upon a time radio and movies were new. Fascists and Nazis exploited this to it's fullest, and spread ego massaging lies, and grabbed power. We're right now in a completely analogue world. But instead of TV and radio, it's the Internet.

Angelo has been completely duped of this new style of communication (No, offence Angelo).

What "saved" the world last time was a world war and a realisation that the sophistic demagogues were only just that. Let's hope it won't come to that? I don't think it will though. The Islamic fundamentalist world is not a fun world to inhabit. I think the allure of freedom, no-strings-sex and drunken debauchery is too strong for Islamic fundamentalism to survive in the long run. But that assumes that the West manages to keep their cool long enough for Islam to kill itself (like Christianity did in the West).

Extremist sites take one instance and infer it is the act or intent of many.

Doesn't everybody? We all have to simplify and extrapolate to make sense of the world. That's not the problem. The problem is picking the right information to infer from. And that's where the Dunning-Kruger paradox comes in.

When the internet was in its conception, I was told this would be a highway of knowledge, but I also commented that this would also server as a sewer of garbage.

Jihadists and Nazis of course may consider the Sewer they wallow in as a highway of knowledge.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So what's new? looks to me that Europe (Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, ....etc) quietly deporting all these "refugees".

There's some more coming in to replace them. It's Summer now and the boats are being loaded

 

[barbos]

So what's new? looks to me that Europe (Germany, Sweden, Norway, France, ....etc) quietly deporting all these "refugees".

Oh, for fucks sake. No! We're doing what we intended to do all the time. The alarmists were just wrong. The system is working.

Yes, you are FINALLY doing that, these "alarmists" forced you do that.
Basically all non-syrian are being deported and once Syria is quasi-OK they will be deported as well.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Oh, for fucks sake. No! We're doing what we intended to do all the time. The alarmists were just wrong. The system is working.

Yes, you are FINALLY doing that, these "alarmists" forced you do that.
Basically all non-syrian are being deported and once Syria is quasi-OK they will be deported as well.

The UNHCR laws are identical. Nothing changed. The only differences is making it harder or easier for refugees to travel. But in hindsight it was irrelevant. Desperate people find a way. What we should have done is taken boats down to Syria or Turkey and brought they here ourselves. Not doing so was shameful.

You're just so fucking wrong now.

 

[TSwizzle]

The UNHCR laws are identical. Nothing changed. The only differences is making it harder or easier for refugees to travel. But in hindsight it was irrelevant. Desperate people find a way. What we should have done is taken boats down to Syria or Turkey and brought they here ourselves. Not doing so was shameful.

70% of the "refugees" arriving in Europe or already arrived are not refugees, they are economic migrants. Sending boats to Syria would be a waste of time.

 

[barbos]

Yes, you are FINALLY doing that, these "alarmists" forced you do that.
Basically all non-syrian are being deported and once Syria is quasi-OK they will be deported as well.

The UNHCR laws are identical. Nothing changed. The only differences is making it harder or easier for refugees to travel. But in hindsight it was irrelevant. Desperate people find a way. What we should have done is taken boats down to Syria or Turkey and brought they here ourselves. Not doing so was shameful.

You're just so fucking wrong now.

Where I am wrong exactly? If I remember correctly it was you who had this theory that "educated" refugees are great for Europe. Well, these educated refugees are now being deported.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The UNHCR laws are identical. Nothing changed. The only differences is making it harder or easier for refugees to travel. But in hindsight it was irrelevant. Desperate people find a way. What we should have done is taken boats down to Syria or Turkey and brought they here ourselves. Not doing so was shameful.

70% of the "refugees" arriving in Europe or already arrived are not refugees, they are economic migrants. Sending boats to Syria would be a waste of time.

Didn't you just argue against yourself? If we want to focus on helping genuine refugees, why not help them leave Syria? That way we can be sure they're from Syria. Problem solved.

A lot of "economic migrants" are from Afghanistan. A country right now in a full blown civil war, yet classed as peaceful. They're refugees. They wrongly assume they have a right to refugee status. Which they should qualify for. But too much US prestige is riding on declaring it a mission accomplished, so it's left to disintegrate. That's hardly the Afghanistanis fault.

The north African economic migrants would be a hell of a lot easier to screen, if we went and got the refugees right out of Syria directly.

- - - Updated - - -

The UNHCR laws are identical. Nothing changed. The only differences is making it harder or easier for refugees to travel. But in hindsight it was irrelevant. Desperate people find a way. What we should have done is taken boats down to Syria or Turkey and brought they here ourselves. Not doing so was shameful.

You're just so fucking wrong now.

Where I am wrong exactly? If I remember correctly it was you who had this theory that "educated" refugees are great for Europe. Well, these educated refugees are now being deported.

They are?

 

[repoman]

So this is too point out selective hypocrisy. This is the mirror image of the propaganda that Angelo does. He imputes that terrorists represent a very large proportion of muslims.



They both are a small, but still too large a portion of Islam or The South. Bias and narrative are how these get twisted.

 

[bilby]

The Islamic fundamentalist world is not a fun world to inhabit. I think the allure of freedom, no-strings-sex and drunken debauchery is too strong for Islamic fundamentalism to survive in the long run.

I think that this is completely wrong. Intoxicated debauchery and no-strings sex are major selling points of Islamic fundamentalism. Alcohol is banned, but it's far from the only intoxicant in the world, and eschewing it is an excellent bonding mechanism to separate 'us' from 'them'.

A major barrier to sex for young men is that women are allowed to say 'piss off, loser', and even marrying one doesn't guarantee you sex on demand - but in fundamentalism it does (this is a big driver for Christian fundamentalists too).

And most importantly, people don't want or like freedom. Freedom is fucking terrifying, particularly to people who are not very bright. What they want is rules; a solid framework of simple instructions that will save them from the risk of having to make a decision, and of possibly getting it wrong.

Freedom is not for the faint-hearted; and that's most people. Freedom requires bravery and intelligence, and the rewards are small. Most people would rather be told what to do - they want a father figure who instructs and provides. A king, or a god, fits the bill perfectly.

Fundamentalists, like drug addicts, don't engage in destructive behaviour because they are stupid; they do it because it relieves them from the stress of having to function in a complex and uncaring society. Freedom is what they are trying to escape from.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to UNHCR everybody who has the need has the right to refuge, regardless if they still have their passports or not. That makes illegals dump their passports in the hope as to be able to bullshit their way through. You can think what you will of this system... that's it's slow and whatever. But it is thorough. It's very hard to get residency.

UNHCR has zero credibility.

 

[bilby]

According to UNHCR everybody who has the need has the right to refuge, regardless if they still have their passports or not. That makes illegals dump their passports in the hope as to be able to bullshit their way through. You can think what you will of this system... that's it's slow and whatever. But it is thorough. It's very hard to get residency.

UNHCR has zero credibility.

Ipse dixit