This week in the strange death of Europe: 6 months prison for "Stop Islamization" banner

[marc]

until it got hijacked by SJWs and woke/enlightened cunts like Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin or Steven Crowder.

???

I'm familiar with Dave Rubin, and he is not a SJW as I understand it. He is a hack paid to give libertarian/right-wing talking points. So yes, he would be using 'free speech' like other right-wing hacks, as a claim to a right to use offensive speech without consequences.

 

[Bomb#20]

Something I also care about as unchecked will lead to a further aberration of what free speech is intended to be.

Free speech is intended to be your outgroup not being allowed to censor your ingroup. Stopping your ingroup from censoring your outgroup was never intended.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Which one of these guys is the person in the bottom right of the big banner?

 

[J842P]

If there are government suppression of speech stories you think are important to bring to light, please do so. I post stories that I come across as I come across them, I don't have a news aggregator.

I'm not sure what you want me to 'own'. I have a big problem with the State suppressing and punishing speech. I'm as close to a free speech absolutist as I know.

EDIT: Also, lol. As if I had ever held up as free speech luminaries any of the countries you mentioned.

I'm not the one claiming to care about free speech. And if where you get your news has nothing from the countries a listed about speech suppression, your news outlets are fucking pathetic.

And just to clarify my position - fuck free speech. Fuck it in all its orifices. It used to be an ideal that meant something until it got hijacked by SJWs and woke/enlightened cunts like Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin or Steven Crowder. Nowadays "free speech" means "blanket unconditional immunity from consequences", but only in developed countries. So fuck free speech as it is outlined in mainstream today and that's why you don't see me posting thread after thread about it. You, on the other hand, seem to care and are suspiciously selective in your stories.

Wow, that is profoundly stupid.

 

[repoman]

View attachment 33847

Which one of these guys is the person in the bottom right of the big banner?

That is some bad ass white nationalism.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

View attachment 33847

Which one of these guys is the person in the bottom right of the big banner?

That is some bad ass white nationalism.

The Aryan symbolism is there. Voorpost wants to unite Dutch regions such as Belgium and Netherlands. Of course they want to keep out Muslims who are not "pure." They used to also be aligned with violent groups until those got banned.

Anyway, my point was the big banner juxtaposes three things:

• The Muslim horde invading;
• The pure Aryan with the superior physique;
• and the goobers who self-identify as the Aryan caricature.

 

[Ford]

OMG, I just realized I've been oppressed by the Muslim horde.

A few weeks ago my co-worker Ahmed (who is an Iraqi Muslim) said he couldn't go to lunch until the sun went down because it was Ramadan. We work second shift, which means I had to hold off on going back to the office for a sandwich for an extra 15 minutes.

We should probably bomb his country into...oh wait...we already did that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

OMG, I just realized I've been oppressed by the Muslim horde.

A few weeks ago my co-worker Ahmed (who is an Iraqi Muslim) said he couldn't go to lunch until the sun went down because it was Ramadan. We work second shift, which means I had to hold off on going back to the office for a sandwich for an extra 15 minutes.

We should probably bomb his country into...oh wait...we already did that.

The strange death of America, part 77.

 

[repoman]

This is an interesting piece of audio recorded by a British guy interviewed by the police over his political views that I am surprised is still up. Not sure if this act of recording and posting got the police upset.

https://files.catbox.moe/bq94nn.mp3

Seems maybe from August 2017 in Lancashire https://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/111234/police-interview

 

[repoman]

yeah, want to have these muslim people with shit-pig ideas have a nice gentle carrot to join the rest of society. Not to be personally attacked so much as to raise their hackles.

I wouldn't mind "Stop Pentacostalization" posters here in Seattle for example, fuck that branch.

"... Want... People with shit-pig ideas... Not to [be] personally attacked"

You attack them personally, and then claim you don't want them to feel (be, in the original language) attacked?

This is a clear example of rank hypocrisy. With this statement you are making the act of being a hypocrite. You cannot claim both things and not be lying. It is not possible.

Pentecostals are also full of shit-pig ideas and I would like the Pentecostal flock to be able to come out of it on their own. In some ways the early days of Youtube atheists having an America-centric (with some European aspect) discussion among at least cultural Christians about why those ideas suck ass. So, this was not an ethnic conflict - but part of a longer conversation among people who accept western culture defined by both christianity and secularism.

Now newer people have come in, that are not interested in that conversation in the same way. Not to discount some of the very oldest Islamic (mostly Persian) Golden Age ideas that honestly were crackingly good.

Reminds me of this 4chan post about John Cleese

 

[bilby]

yeah, want to have these muslim people with shit-pig ideas have a nice gentle carrot to join the rest of society. Not to be personally attacked so much as to raise their hackles.

I wouldn't mind "Stop Pentacostalization" posters here in Seattle for example, fuck that branch.

"... Want... People with shit-pig ideas... Not to [be] personally attacked"

You attack them personally, and then claim you don't want them to feel (be, in the original language) attacked?

This is a clear example of rank hypocrisy. With this statement you are making the act of being a hypocrite. You cannot claim both things and not be lying. It is not possible.

Pentecostals are also full of shit-pig ideas and I would like the Pentecostal flock to be able to come out of it on their own. In some ways the early days of Youtube atheists having an America-centric (with some European aspect) discussion among at least cultural Christians about why those ideas suck ass. So, this was not an ethnic conflict - but part of a longer conversation among people who accept western culture defined by both christianity and secularism.

Now newer people have come in, that are not interested in that conversation in the same way. Not to discount some of the very oldest Islamic (mostly Persian) Golden Age ideas that honestly were crackingly good.

Reminds me of this 4chan post about John Cleese

View attachment 33852

Wow. That's an amazing illustration of just how badly wrong about, well, almost everything, 4chan usually is.

London has been a multicultural city for at least five centuries, probably more like two millennia. 1960s Britain wasn't particularly white - the bulk of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, the West Indies, and African commonwealth countries arrived in the 1950s and into the '60s. It certainly wasn't polite, though an American might well miss the trademark passive-aggressive rudeness of the British. Nobody was helpful, certainly not anyone in any kind of officialdom (and the more petty their office, the less helpful they were); These were the people about whom the name 'jobsworth' was coined, and their customer service attitude was parodied brilliantly by Cleese himself in Fawlty Towers; He despised his customers, and (with the exception of the unfortunate foreigners) they expected this attitude, and couldn't imagine any better one.

London was multicultural; Everyone was suspicious with good reason (violence and gang crime was rife, and the police were just the best organised of the violent gangs; The countryside died economically with WWII and never really recovered; there's nobody today that you're not allowed to make fun of, you're just no longer allowed to be a total cunt about it; humour is alive and well, but pretending that racism and sexism are humour is no longer de-rigeur, thankfully.

Politicians and others in authority positions were getting away with paedophilia which was more prevalent then than now - largely because today victims are less likely to be silenced, and more likely to come forward. There's a huge difference between "nobody mentioned it, and certainly nobody got punished for any but the most blatant and obvious cases" and "it wasn't happening". It's no surprise that the most high profile cases of child abuse are coming to light after decades of silence. The prosecutions (or posthumous reckonings) might be happening today, but the vast majority of the crimes were in the 50s, 60s and 70s, and what has been uncovered is likely a tiny fraction of what occurred.

The insane nostalgia for a non-existent utopian past is almost universal in both space and time amongst powerful groups whose strength is finally waning. The 1960s might have been great for white middle class men in Britain; But largely that was because they didn't even notice the harm they were doing to everyone else, and even to themselves. Now that they're forced to see and take account of the people with fewer privileges than theirs they feel like everything is going to shit - but actually, it was always shit, and now they're being made to improve it rather than ignoring it.

The past was fucking horrible. And it takes a real dedication to avoiding the study of history to believe otherwise.

 

[Metaphor]

London has been a multicultural city for at least five centuries, probably more like two millennia. 1960s Britain wasn't particularly white - the bulk of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, the West Indies, and African commonwealth countries arrived in the 1950s and into the '60s.

Of course, this is wrong. 1960s Britain was 'particularly white' - in 1991 (let alone 1961), it was 93.8% white. The percentage of 'foreign born' people in Britain (which would be a mixture of white and POC foreign-born) was less than 5% in 1961.

London in particular has seen its white population percentage go from 79.8% in 1991 to 59.8% in 2011. It is an outright fabrication to imply there have not been meaningful demographic shifts in London since the 1960s.

 

[bilby]

London has been a multicultural city for at least five centuries, probably more like two millennia. 1960s Britain wasn't particularly white - the bulk of immigrants from the Indian subcontinent, the West Indies, and African commonwealth countries arrived in the 1950s and into the '60s.

Of course, this is wrong. 1960s Britain was 'particularly white' - in 1991 (let alone 1961), it was 93.8% white. The percentage of 'foreign born' people in Britain (which would be a mixture of white and POC foreign-born) was less than 5% in 1961.

London in particular has seen its white population percentage go from 79.8% in 1991 to 59.8% in 2011. It is an outright fabrication to imply there have not been meaningful demographic shifts in London since the 1960s.

No, it just depends on what you consider "meaningful". Non-racists see benefits in multicultural societies; Racists see pollution in a society with anything less than 100% of their race. So is a shift from 'about one in five' to 'about two in five' strangers on the tube don't look enough like me for my tastes 'significant'? I don't think it would be for either racists or non-racists.

And there were plenty of Afro-Caribbean, African, Indian, and South East Asian people in London in 1960 who were not 'foreign born'.

 

[Trausti]

Non-racists see benefits in multicultural societies;

What benefit? Multicultural societies are usually powder kegs requiring a heavy hand for stability. Democracy doesn’t work well there.

 

[Metaphor]

No, it just depends on what you consider "meaningful". Non-racists see benefits in multicultural societies; Racists see pollution in a society with anything less than 100% of their race. So is a shift from 'about one in five' to 'about two in five' strangers on the tube don't look enough like me for my tastes 'significant'?

If you believe that "racists" believe in an imagined past where London was 100% white in 1961, then it speaks more to your caricature of who you think is racist.

But to answer your question, yes. A shift from 20% to 40% non-white is literally doubling the percentage of non-white people. It's difficult to believe you think that's trivial. It would be difficult to believe you would find any similar demographic shift trivial. A mining town where female residents went from 20% to 40% would notice it.

And there were plenty of Afro-Caribbean, African, Indian, and South East Asian people in London in 1960 who were not 'foreign born'.

Unfortunately, I can't find ethnicity breakdowns (foreign born or not) for London for 1961, but I suspect it would be whiter than in 1991, which in turn was significantly whiter than 2011.

 

[bilby]

Non-racists see benefits in multicultural societies;

What benefit? Multicultural societies are usually powder kegs requiring a heavy hand for stability. Democracy doesn’t work well there.

Yes, I didn't expect you to be able to see them.

 

[bilby]

No, it just depends on what you consider "meaningful". Non-racists see benefits in multicultural societies; Racists see pollution in a society with anything less than 100% of their race. So is a shift from 'about one in five' to 'about two in five' strangers on the tube don't look enough like me for my tastes 'significant'?

If you believe that "racists" believe in an imagined past where London was 100% white in 1961, then it speaks more to your caricature of who you think is racist.

But to answer your question, yes. A shift from 20% to 40% non-white is literally doubling the percentage of non-white people. It's difficult to believe you think that's trivial. It would be difficult to believe you would find any similar demographic shift trivial. A mining town where female residents went from 20% to 40% would notice it.

And there were plenty of Afro-Caribbean, African, Indian, and South East Asian people in London in 1960 who were not 'foreign born'.

Unfortunately, I can't find ethnicity breakdowns (foreign born or not) for London for 1961, but I suspect it would be whiter than in 1991, which in turn was significantly whiter than 2011.

Noticeable isn't the same thing as significant; And I am not interested in further pedantic discussion of this minor point you extracted from a much larger post I made in response to someone else. Thanks for your input; I shall give it the consideration it deserves.

 

[Trausti]

Non-racists see benefits in multicultural societies;

What benefit? Multicultural societies are usually powder kegs requiring a heavy hand for stability. Democracy doesn’t work well there.

Yes, I didn't expect you to be able to see them.

So, Syria? Iraq? The Habsburg Empire? The Soviet Union? Rwanda? Congo? Yugoslavia? Nigeria? India?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes, I didn't expect you to be able to see them.

So, Syria? Iraq? The Habsburg Empire? The Soviet Union? Rwanda? Congo? Yugoslavia? Nigeria? India?

You realize most of your examples aren't about multiculturalism in general, but specifically about Islam?

 

[bilby]

Yes, I didn't expect you to be able to see them.

So, Syria? Iraq? The Habsburg Empire? The Soviet Union? Rwanda? Congo? Yugoslavia? Nigeria? India?

You realize most of your examples aren't about multiculturalism in general, but specifically about Islam?

They're also a neat illustration of selection bias. Places with conflict make the news. Multicultural nations whose only problems are due to racism by a handful of dickheads are many, but they don't make the headlines. Nobody's going to read an article about the absence of ethnic conflict in the 170+ nations not listed by Trausti. Indeed, he had to include nations that no longer exist to pad out his list.

This is the same logical error that leads to the inevitable question from idiots every time someone points out that nuclear power is the safest way to make electricity - "WhAt aBoUt ChErNoByL???".

Being talked about isn't the same thing as being significant, nor as being ubiquitous. It's almost always the opposite of being typical.

'Dog bites man' doesn't get into the papers, but that doesn't mean that 'man bites dog' is the more usual interaction.