Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

EU - Off-Shore Processing of Illegal Economic Migrants

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Boliches View Post


    You might refrain from using that word cuck for anyone who does not share your views. It tends to undermine your argument.

    I wonder why you think that people will stop tolerating the system. You might see it as outdated, but democracy has proved itself a survivor. If you would stop calling anyone who does not agree with you a cuck, you might notice that in many mature European democracies there is no clear majority to either the left or right. There is just a big majority for upholding civil rights. Doing nothing is a fairly good strategy for politicians. It increases the probability that a large majority might at least tolerate you for your full term in office. My guess, therefore, would be that this policy stands a good chance of being tolerated for many years to come.
    Good call, the over-use of the work "cuck" is quite childish imo. here is quite an interesting article on it actually...https://www.gq.com/story/why-angry-w...g-people-cucks

    Anyhow i'm pleased in the direction Europe is going regarding immigrants atm, it seems the main countries involved are playing NIMBY...not in my back yard to please the general populous which they have realised slowly but surely have had enough of this madness.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Boliches View Post


      You might refrain from using that word cuck for anyone who does not share your views. It tends to undermine your argument.

      I wonder why you think that people will stop tolerating the system. You might see it as outdated, but democracy has proved itself a survivor. If you would stop calling anyone who does not agree with you a cuck, you might notice that in many mature European democracies there is no clear majority to either the left or right. There is just a big majority for upholding civil rights. Doing nothing is a fairly good strategy for politicians. It increases the probability that a large majority might at least tolerate you for your full term in office. My guess, therefore, would be that this policy stands a good chance of being tolerated for many years to come.
      Undermines it, how? If you have a problem with my argument, then explain what's wrong with it, not empty, vague complaints with no substance behind it.

      In case, you didn't know, it's term used nowadays to describe, conservatives in particular or even so-called right-wingers, who have no backbone and behave like liberals or left-wingers, in reality. So, what is wrong with using that word according to you?

      Don't give me this argument about the value of 'civil rights.' All these politicians are hypocrites. They claim to want to help 'rescue' these migrants but they won't even help their own people. Despite the greatness of their claimed democracy and what they express as 'surviving' or persisting, there's a lot of inherent flaws in it and people can point out deficiencies as even those that oppose it can easily do so. These politicians neglect their own people and in each of these so-called democracies, there are people already there suffering in some way, homeless, those who lose their belongings or possessions because of bad choices or unfortunate events, including alcohol and drug addiction and so on and so on. But, these politicians just disregard those who they don't think have any source or influence towards their political power. This is true in virtually every democracy and EVERY country so don't give me the BS about how great democracy is. If you think the people will tolerate it for years, it would only be because the populace have been indoctrinated and brainwashed not to question anything and to be afraid of opposing it in a significant way. But, as can be seen in many occasions, this is gradually changing. If one was to look at the big picture and speculate on how this might change in time, I think it's reasonable to consider a change in attitudes and values over time despite systematic indoctrination.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by fatbeard View Post

        Good call, the over-use of the work "cuck" is quite childish imo. here is quite an interesting article on it actually...https://www.gq.com/story/why-angry-w...g-people-cucks

        Anyhow i'm pleased in the direction Europe is going regarding immigrants atm, it seems the main countries involved are playing NIMBY...not in my back yard to please the general populous which they have realised slowly but surely have had enough of this madness.
        You think that's an 'interesting' article? Really? I guess that shows more about you than supporting the critique of using the word.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Tux1 View Post
          You think that's an 'interesting' article? Really? I guess that shows more about you than supporting the critique of using the word.
          Yes I do or I wouldn't of mentioned it obviously, it isn't rocket science.

          I'm highlighting the fact that you are over-using the word cuck which is actually a sign of insecure immaturity, like I highlighted the fact you over-use the word "troll" to anyone that you don't agree with or more importantly doesn't agree with you as from your posts you are certain you have all the answers and therefor everyone else is of course wrong. Interestingly enough that article sites "insecurity" as a reason for the over-use of the work "cuck", I find that no coincidence, in short grow up ;-)

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by fatbeard View Post

            Yes I do or I wouldn't of mentioned it obviously, it isn't rocket science.

            I'm highlighting the fact that you are over-using the word cuck which is actually a sign of insecure immaturity, like I highlighted the fact you over-use the word "troll" to anyone that you don't agree with or more importantly doesn't agree with you as from your posts you are certain you have all the answers and therefor everyone else is of course wrong. Interestingly enough that article sites "insecurity" as a reason for the over-use of the work "cuck", I find that no coincidence, in short grow up ;-)
            So, you still couldn't explain what was wrong with it. That figures. Anyway, I think the writer/author is a left-wing Jewish writer who also decided to turn it into a racist thing (according to liberals, that is how it should be perceived as) with the description, 'angry white men.' But, maybe, you just decided you agreed with it because you are easily deluded by liberal writers.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Tux1 View Post
              Undermines it, how? If you have a problem with my argument, then explain what's wrong with it, not empty, vague complaints with no substance behind it.

              In case, you didn't know, it's term used nowadays to describe, conservatives in particular or even so-called right-wingers, who have no backbone and behave like liberals or left-wingers, in reality. So, what is wrong with using that word according to you?

              Don't give me this argument about the value of 'civil rights.' All these politicians are hypocrites. They claim to want to help 'rescue' these migrants but they won't even help their own people. Despite the greatness of their claimed democracy and what they express as 'surviving' or persisting, there's a lot of inherent flaws in it and people can point out deficiencies as even those that oppose it can easily do so. These politicians neglect their own people and in each of these so-called democracies, there are people already there suffering in some way, homeless, those who lose their belongings or possessions because of bad choices or unfortunate events, including alcohol and drug addiction and so on and so on. But, these politicians just disregard those who they don't think have any source or influence towards their political power. This is true in virtually every democracy and EVERY country so don't give me the BS about how great democracy is. If you think the people will tolerate it for years, it would only be because the populace have been indoctrinated and brainwashed not to question anything and to be afraid of opposing it in a significant way. But, as can be seen in many occasions, this is gradually changing. If one was to look at the big picture and speculate on how this might change in time, I think it's reasonable to consider a change in attitudes and values over time despite systematic indoctrination.
              Mostly, there is no argument. It is ranting, shouting and name-calling as is your new post. The above is yet another rant that is void of any argument.

              Originally posted by fatbeard View Post
              I'm highlighting the fact that you are over-using the word cuck which is actually a sign of insecure immaturity, like I highlighted the fact you over-use the word "troll" to anyone that you don't agree with or more importantly doesn't agree with you as from your posts you are certain you have all the answers and therefor everyone else is of course wrong. Interestingly enough that article sites "insecurity" as a reason for the over-use of the work "cuck", I find that no coincidence, in short grow up ;-)
              Exactly that.

              Not agreeing with the viewpoint - and they are viewpoints that rarely offer arguments - of certain people does not constitute having
              Originally posted by Tux1 View Post
              no backbone.
              As for the way you use the word liberal: you might do well to read what constitutes liberalism. It has nothing to do with left wing. It is one of those shouting and name-calling things that some people confuse with arguments. In many European countries - liberalism was invented in Europe - liberal parties are right-wing.


              OP asked a valid question. If you hold an opinion: contribute to the discussion. Up to now, you offered your views on immigration, people that do not hold your opinion and, mostly, politicians. But you have not answered the questions posed by OP.
              Last edited by Boliches; 06-30-2018, 07:44 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Tux1 View Post
                So, you still couldn't explain what was wrong with it. That figures. Anyway, I think the writer/author is a left-wing Jewish writer who also decided to turn it into a racist thing (according to liberals, that is how it should be perceived as) with the description, 'angry white men.' But, maybe, you just decided you agreed with it because you are easily deluded by liberal writers.
                That really is a clumsy reply from you, you never asked me to explain what was wrong with it, you asked me if I thought it was an interesting article, I replied I did. You might want to stop trying to be clever right now, you failed last time and you will do no better this time around ;-)

                As for the article itself I agree with the findings of the immature over-use of the word "cuck", or the over-use of any other tag word when it comes to debate. Over-use of any word does smack of immaturity, an example of this is when a child learns a "new word" and keeps on repeating it that is more or less expected as they are a child, when an adult learns a new word they are expected not to get carried away and restrict themselves of the use or come across as immature.

                Bottom line is i'm not deluded by anyone, least of all you ;-)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Boliches View Post

                  As for the way you use the word liberal: you might do well to read what constitutes liberalism. It has nothing to do with left wing. It is one of those shouting and name-calling things that some people confuse with arguments. In many European countries - liberalism was invented in Europe - liberal parties are right-wing.
                  That is true. Europe invented liberalism. The problem is there is no real liberalism anymore. All overwritten by marxism. In that sense it has everything to do with left wing.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                    That is true. Europe invented liberalism. The problem is there is no real liberalism anymore. All overwritten by marxism. In that sense it has everything to do with left wing.
                    Not in my country, nor in Austria. The interesting part about your statement is that the liberal abuse tends to come from people who seem to have much in common with marxist ideology. Liberalism constitutes a minimal involvement of government. It considers the tasks of the government as being limited to security - in today's world, you might add health - and facilitating economic interaction. It raises the question what those people that shout "liberal" at anyone who does not agree with their rants want: involvement of the state? That rather sounds like socialism and a government that tells you how to think and what to do.

                    It strikes me that most people who abuse the word liberal have a thing in common: thoughtless parroting of ideas posed by one politically-motivated person. Now, what socio-political system does such behaviour remind you of?
                    Last edited by Boliches; 06-30-2018, 08:09 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Boliches View Post

                      Not in my country, nor in Austria. The interesting part about your statement is that liberalism constitutes a minimal involvement of government. It considers the tasks of the government as being limited to security - in today's world, you might add health - and facilitating economic interaction. It raises the question what those people that shout "liberal" at anyone who does not agree with their ranting want: involvement of the state? That rather sounds like socialism and a governm0ent that tells you how to think and what to do.

                      It strikes me that most people who abuse the word liberal have a thing in common: thoughtless parroting of ideas posed by one politically-motivated person. Now, what socio-political system does such behaviour remind you of?
                      In every western country. Including yours. But the most hillarious part is that you in the west do not see it.
                      People who shout "liberal" do not mean the features you mention, because this is traditionally understood liberalism. The people who shout liberal in fact mean leftist. Neomarxist, or cultural marxist that these days poses in the west as "liberalism".

                      You might want to watch this as a nice introduction to a problem


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                        People who shout "liberal" do not mean the features you mention, because this is traditionally understood liberalism. The people who shout liberal in fact mean leftist. Neomarxist, or cultural marxist that these days poses in the west as "liberalism".
                        Exactly! Only, the liberal parties in Europe tend to be right from most other parties.

                        The difference between far right and far left is not so big. Both extremes tend towards a totalitarian system. Nazism has a socialist element, just like marxism. The people that abuse the term liberalism in such a liberal way have strong totalitarian tendencies. They may pose as right-wing, but they would feel most comfortable in a state-run system in which the leader holds their views and does not allow any other views.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Boliches View Post

                          Exactly! Only, the liberal parties in Europe tend to be right from most other parties.

                          The difference between far right and far left is not so big. Both extremes tend towards a totalitarian system. Nazism has a socialist element, just like marxism. The people that abuse the term liberalism in such a liberal way have strong totalitarian tendencies. They may pose as right-wing, but they would feel most comfortable in a state-run system in which the leader holds their views and does not allow any other views.
                          I don't see any right wing parties in Europe anymore. Just marxism with its "hate speech" laws which is basically censorship under the penalty of fine or even prison. How west approaches immigrant problem is also pure leftism. Cultural relativism (all cultures all equal bullshit) is also pure leftism again. Etc etc

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post
                            I don't see any right wing parties in Europe anymore. Just marxism with its "hate speech" laws which is basically censorship under the penalty of fine or even prison. How west approaches immigrant problem is also pure leftism. Cultural relativism (all cultures all equal bullshit) is also pure leftism again. Etc etc
                            That is an interesting viewpoint. I seem to remember Germany was not very committed to cultural relativism in the early morning of 1 September 1939. I also vaguely remember an Austrian corporal who held brilliant hate speeches. Just like

                            Originally posted by Tux1 View Post
                            Anyway, I think the writer/author is a left-wing Jewish writer who also decided to turn it into a racist thing (according to liberals, that is how it should be perceived as) with the description, 'angry white men.'
                            he loved to blame Jews for all that was wrong in the world. He kind of forgot Germany's own role.

                            In some countries, people can say what they are saying, because those liberals from Britain and France held another view.
                            Last edited by Boliches; 06-30-2018, 09:12 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Boliches View Post

                              That is an interesting viewpoint. I seem to remember Germany was not very committed to cultural relativism in the early morning of 1 September 1939. I also vaguely remember an Austrian corporal who held brilliant hate speeches. Just like

                              he loved to blame Jews for all the Germans had brought on themselves.
                              I mean today, not in 1930s. But it's intresting why you automatically mention nazism when I deny cultural relativism
                              This is exactly one of the symptoms of what I'm talking about. Also what is probably Tux talking about. The narrative is as follows: everyone who opposes neo-marxist revolution needs to be called "fascist", or "a nazi" and this way silenced.
                              Very intresting for me is that westerners fall for that nonsense. It's probably because you didn't have communism in your countries. You don't know what communist newspeak is and how it shapes reality through language.
                              No. Denying cultural relativism doesn;t have anything to do with being nazi. It's just normality, casual centrism I'd say.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by jordan_rudess View Post

                                I mean today, not in 1930s. But it's intresting why you automatically mention nazism when I deny cultural relativism
                                This is exactly one of the symptoms of what I'm talking about. Also what is probably Tux talking about. The narrative is as follows: everyone who opposes neo-marxist revolution needs to be called "fascist", or "a nazi" and this way silenced.
                                Very intresting for me is that westerners fall for that nonsense. It's probably because you didn't have communism in your countries. You don't know what communist newspeak is and how it shapes reality through language.
                                No. Denying cultural relativism doesn;t have anything to do with being nazi. It's just normality, casual centrism I'd say.
                                I abhor the use of the word nazi or fascist to point at anything that is not left-wing. I do so just as much as abusing the word liberal to point at anything that is not reactionary. My point is that hate-speech legislation is not aimed at stopping you from voicing an opinion. It is aimed at stopping you from inciting religious, racial or other hatred. If you hold an opinion, you should voice it. I care very little about political correctness. But one thing is voicing an opinion and another is being abusive and inciting hatred.

                                This neo-Marxist revolution is a figment of your imagination. The fact that your rants are not listened to has nothing to do with Marxism, it has to do with your ranting.

                                Stating that we did not have communism in our country is quite a stupidity. We had. We actually had idiots that thought the Soviet Union was a paradise. Fortunately, democracy prevailed and prevented communists from holding power. And guess where communists were able to take control.
                                Last edited by Boliches; 06-30-2018, 09:48 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X