Immigration and multiculturalism news

[SoliFortissimi]

Stop being so naive. That paradigm is long since dead and buried.

I've heard almost exactly the same rhetoric......on left leaning communities, deploring how extremist right wingers have become.

It's funny.

 

[Jormungandr]

I've heard almost exactly the same rhetoric......on left leaning communities, deploying how extremist right wingers have become.

It's funny.

Except that, unlike hysterical Leftists and Democrats, people who aren't Leftists aren't the ones trying to actively suppress, silence, brainwash, or even kill their counterparts. They've gone full on authoritarian, and (ironically) a lot of how the way they act echoes what we've seen in 1920's and 1930's Germany (in how people act/react and are unknowingly used by those "running the show" as pawns for their own ends).

The age old political game of things swinging between the Left and Right in the US has been smashed, upturned, because the Left and Democrats have changed the game entirely, and the Right/conservatives are slow on the uptake. We see this in basically every decision made by them, from government right down to the social level.

They now have power and, more importantly, influence over people aren't going to let it all go unless it's pried from their cold, dead fingers.

I'm being sadly realistic about this whole clusterfuck.

 

[DarthOne]

I've heard almost exactly the same rhetoric......on left leaning communities, deploying how extremist right wingers have become.

It's funny.

They think we’re being extremists now? Ha! They have no idea.

 

[mrttao]

Except that, unlike hysterical Leftists and Democrats, people who aren't Leftists aren't the ones trying to actively suppress, silence, brainwash, or even kill their counterparts.

But leftists all believe we do because that is what TV tells them 24/7.
Trump is literally hitler. Anyone who votes for him is literally a nazi who wants to genocide everyone else. And are authoritarian dictators and censors.
Thus they are convinced they are only engaging in "self defense genocide"

 

[ATP]

But leftists all believe we do because that is what TV tells them 24/7.
Trump is literally hitler. Anyone who votes for him is literally a nazi who wants to genocide everyone else. And are authoritarian dictators and censors.
Thus they are convinced they are only engaging in "self defense genocide"

The same in Poland.
But,when i undarstandt why they try that in Poland - practically only commies have right to own weapons,and knew how to use it,so they could schoot normal people -

Why they try that in USA? i do not see rednecks and cowboys quietly thrown to gulags and massgraves by Antifa,they would end in massgraves themselves if they try that.

So,why leftist try toi provoke civil war in USA,where they actually could lost ?

Antifa are idiots,but their Wall Street owners are smart.

 

[mrttao]

Why they try that in USA? i do not see rednecks and cowboys quietly thrown to gulags and massgraves by Antifa,they would end in massgraves themselves if they try that.

So,why leftist try toi provoke civil war in USA,where they actually could lost ?

1. leftists are very very very far detached from reality.

2. there is a reason why gun control is such an important thing for them. they NEED To disarm the right wingers so that antifa has guns and the right wingers have nothing to defend themselves with.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Except that, unlike hysterical Leftists and Democrats, people who aren't Leftists aren't the ones trying to actively suppress, silence, brainwash, or even kill their counterparts. They've gone full on authoritarian, and (ironically) a lot of how the way they act echoes what we've seen in 1920's and 1930's Germany (in how people act/react and are unknowingly used by those "running the show" as pawns for their own ends).

The age old political game of things swinging between the Left and Right in the US has been smashed, upturned, because the Left and Democrats have changed the game entirely, and the Right/conservatives are slow on the uptake. We see this in basically every decision made by them, from government right down to the social level.

They now have power and, more importantly, influence over people aren't going to let it all go unless it's pried from their cold, dead fingers.

I'm being sadly realistic about this whole clusterfuck.

And yes, I've heard that one as well. I've heard all kinds of bluster and ominously vague threats about how "They" have now become so murderous, totalitarian, fanatical, and chaotic that the old paradigm of politics is dead.

That's why I found it funny. You guys literally use the exact same rhetoric, just with the proper nouns changed.

They think we’re being extremists now? Ha! They have no idea.

Of what?

 

[mrttao]

And yes, I've heard that one as well. I've heard all kinds of bluster and ominously vague threats about how "They" have now become so murderous, totalitarian, fanatical, and chaotic that the old paradigm of politics is dead.

That's why I found it funny. You guys literally use the exact same rhetoric, just with the proper nouns changed.

This specific rhetoric is called "self defense".
There is nothing wrong with the rhetoric of self defense.
Self defense is a fundamental human right.
The problem is with lying.

If you are a judge, and two men are brought in after having shot each other (both survived)
They both claim self defense.
One of them is lying.

 

[ATP]

1. leftists are very very very far detached from reality.

2. there is a reason why gun control is such an important thing for them. they NEED To disarm the right wingers so that antifa has guns and the right wingers have nothing to defend themselves with.

Yes,they try that - but they should do that slowly,and start civil war when normal people are robbed of their guns.
Maybe they knew something - for example,that ,for some reason,they must do that now or never would have chance again?
But,why?

If leftists acted smartly,they could remove weapons till,let say,2040 and start civil war then.
Why they do not wait?

 

[Jormungandr]

And yes, I've heard that one as well. I've heard all kinds of bluster and ominously vague threats about how "They" have now become so murderous, totalitarian, fanatical, and chaotic that the old paradigm of politics is dead.

That's why I found it funny. You guys literally use the exact same rhetoric, just with the proper nouns changed.

Of what?

Oh, that's just hilarious. If you can't see why... welp. shrug

 

[Poe]

Yes,they try that - but they should do that slowly,and start civil war when normal people are robbed of their guns.
Maybe they knew something - for example,that ,for some reason,they must do that now or never would have chance again?
But,why?

If leftists acted smartly,they could remove weapons till,let say,2040 and start civil war then.
Why they do not wait?

Most people on the left do not realize how hard they are pushing, they see it as the exact opposite. The mean right will not stop pushing against their beliefs. When @mrttao says they are detached from reality he is being serious, their entire world is shaped by 24/7 social media painting a picture of them as the good guys and their worldview as the norm with conservatives as the radicals looking to upend society. They can't even fathom that the right wing is simply pushing back for the first time in decades using precedents set by their side, they're incapable of understanding this.

If civil war broke out tomorrow it would be a huge shock to the average person on the left and they would 100% see themselves as the victims.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

If you are a judge, and two men are brought in after having shot each other (both survived)
They both claim self defense.
One of them is lying.

And what if both men claimed that they shot first because if they didn't, they KNOW that the other would have killed them?

. If you can't see why

Of course I can. It's called Horseshoe Theory.

 

[ATP]

Most people on the left do not realize how hard they are pushing, they see it as the exact opposite. The mean right will not stop pushing against their beliefs. When @mrttao says they are detached from reality he is being serious, their entire world is shaped by 24/7 social media painting a picture of them as the good guys and their worldview as the norm with conservatives as the radicals looking to upend society. They can't even fathom that the right wing is simply pushing back for the first time in decades using precedents set by their side, they're incapable of understanding this.

If civil war broke out tomorrow it would be a huge shock to the average person on the left and they would 100% see themselves as the victims.

So,next american civil war would be started by idiots beliving that they are victims.Clown world,indeed.
Maybe better,if it burned now? people do not seem smarter.

 

[Abhorsen]

That's why I found it funny. You guys literally use the exact same rhetoric, just with the proper nouns changed.

The difference is that one side uses rhetoric, the other uses the state. They are stealing kids from their parents for not wanting to transition their kids. The reverse isn't happening. They arrest those who try to do self defense, while releasing those who do actual crimes. They force mass firings for vaccine mandates that don't work. They threaten companies into mass censorship, and I could go on.

When someone mercilessly beats another, you can't both sides them because both are saying bad things.

If you are a judge, and two men are brought in after having shot each other (both survived)
They both claim self defense.
One of them is lying.

This is actually completely false in the US system. Stand your ground means that multiple people can claim self defense. For example, in the Rittenhouse case, the second two people who got shot (not the first), could arguably be self defense, if they thought he was a mass shooter (then Grosskreutz said he didn't feel in danger on the stand, meaning he actually should have been prosecuted). You don't have to be certain of danger to claim self defense, just reasonable.

 

[mrttao]

This is actually completely false in the US system. Stand your ground means that multiple people can claim self defense. For example, in the Rittenhouse case, the second two people who got shot (not the first), could arguably be self defense, if they thought he was a mass shooter (then Grosskreutz said he didn't feel in danger on the stand, meaning he actually should have been prosecuted). You don't have to be certain of danger to claim self defense, just reasonable.

Facepalm.
1. I didn't say two people can't claim it. I said one of the people claiming it is lying.

2. This is the best example you could come up with? Rittenhouse is clearly an unambiguous case where there is the guy who acted in self defense (kyle rittenhouse) and the murderous bastards who were chasing him down and are lying when they claim self defense.

If you wanted to find an edge case you should have looked harder.
But sure... let us say that "99%+ of the time, one of them is lying" instead of "always one of them is lying"

 

[LordsFire]

And yes, I've heard that one as well. I've heard all kinds of bluster and ominously vague threats about how "They" have now become so murderous, totalitarian, fanatical, and chaotic that the old paradigm of politics is dead.

That's why I found it funny. You guys literally use the exact same rhetoric, just with the proper nouns changed.

Of what?

There are a couple of key differences you're glossing over:

1. Leftists are currently and actively using state power to oppress their ideological opponents.
2. Conservatives overwhelming aren't interested in oppressing their opponents, they just want them out of political power. There certainly are some people who have become bitter and do want that, but the first and primary objective is always 'get these lunatics away from our children and the levers of power.'
3. History. Every time leftism manages to impose a single-party state, they become brutal tyrannical dictatorships, and things go to hell in a handbasket. The French Revolution played this out in excruciating detail over 200 years ago, yet for some reason they keep trying the same crap over and over again.
4. Conservatives have limiting principles and believe in things like 'grace' and 'forgiveness' and 'the universal moral franchise.' It's abusing these things that has let the left get so far, and they do not believe in such things.

 

[Abhorsen]

Facepalm.
1. I didn't say two people can't claim it. I said one of them is a liar.

No, they can both be completely honest. And completely correct in claiming self defense.

If there's a mass shooting, you see person A shoot person B, so you shoot A, and they shoot back, you're valid for self defense. If person B is the mass shooter, A's valid for self defense.

2. This is the best example you could come up with? Rittenhouse is clearly an unambiguous case where there is the guy who acted in self defense (kyle rittenhouse) and the murderous bastards who were chasing him down and are lying when they claim self defense.

That's the most notable example, not the best example.

 

[mrttao]

No, they can both be completely honest. And completely correct in claiming self defense.

double facepalm.

point 1, which is what you are replying to, is correcting your (hopefully accidental) strawman. where you falsely misrepresent what I said

the notion you present where they are both honest is addressed in point 2.
where I concluded:

If you wanted to find an edge case you should have looked harder.
But sure... let us say that "99%+ of the time, one of them is lying" instead of "always one of them is lying"

====

That's the most notable example, not the best example.

It is a noteable example that proves you wrong.

 

[Abhorsen]

point 1, which is what you are replying to, is correcting your (hopefully accidental) strawman. where you falsely misrepresent what I said

You stated something stupid, something you only corrected later. Me, quoting your stupid statement, is not a strawman. Now that you've altered your statement, we can go forward, but that was not your original statement. Don't Motte and Bailey.

It is a noteable example that proves you wrong.

... If you think an example can prove a negative, you need a lot more help than I can provide. More, while not a perfect example, it was a usefully illustrative example for getting the basic point across in a legal sense.

 

[mrttao]

You stated something stupid, something you only corrected later. Me, quoting your stupid statement, is not a strawman. Now that you've altered your statement, we can go forward, but that was not your original statement. Don't Motte and Bailey.

As usual, you lie. Big liar

If you are a judge, and two men are brought in after having shot each other (both survived)
They both claim self defense.
One of them is lying.

This is actually completely false in the US system. Stand your ground means that multiple people can claim self defense.

Facepalm.
1. I didn't say two people can't claim it. I said one of the people claiming it is lying.

My original post LITERALLY states that both CLAIM self defense. Because both CAN claim self defense.
But one of them is LYING in his claim.

You "corrected" me that in the USA two people are allowed to claim self defense.
I pointed out your strawman. that I explicitly said two people can claim self defense. What I disagreed with is with both of them being RIGHT about their claim.

A non wrong retort to my original post would have been "two people can be innocent by virtue of self defense".
Which is probably what you MEANT but didn't realize.
Even though it is a big step further than merely claiming it.

And it is something I addressed in literally the next line

2. This is the best example you could come up with? Rittenhouse is clearly an unambiguous case where there is the guy who acted in self defense (kyle rittenhouse) and the murderous bastards who were chasing him down and are lying when they claim self defense.

If you wanted to find an edge case you should have looked harder.
But sure... let us say that "99%+ of the time, one of them is lying" instead of "always one of them is lying"