File: 1462164637806.jpg (18.79 KB, 290x296, ben-garrison.jpg)
File: 1462207376075.jpg (75.71 KB, 650x431, PA-1289158.jpg)
It's always lovely how so many of the people who want to save the ~~powerful and beautiful~~ white race look like potatoes soaked in booze. Kek
Whatever example you want to pick, black tumblr is full of whining, bitching, people claiming they were triggered
by X, Y and Z. The "white tears" claim is hypocritical, black people aren't nonchalant about perceived slights to their race, they react far more hysterically and violently than white people do on the whole.
Okay, but can you come up with a case or news story where a black person was literally reduced to tears because of a person in a movie not being black?
I can pull up evidence of white people, especially on /pol/, sites like Stormfront and ChimpOut, some factions of Reddit, etc being even more retarded than black Tumblr (as if that's possible).
>>89661>being even more retarded than black Tumblr
Black Tumblr believes that the police unfairly target them, that black people don't commit a disproportionate amount of crime and a good portion unironically believe in we wuz kings shit, right up to supposed "respectable black opinion".
Nothing is more retarded than that.
The problem with black people is that they don't seem to understand white people can live without them, but they can't live without us. That's what this problem fundamentally boils down to.
The problem with this argument is that we already have a reliable metric by which we can compare whether or not police are targeting black people at a rate above that of which they are committing crime. We can compare the NCVS data to nationwide arrest data and see if there is a discrepency, if the police were unfairly targeting blacks on a nationwide scale, systematically, you would expect to see black people arrested at above
the rate at which they are reported to have committed certain crimes, except the complete opposite is true.
>here's my anecdote about white cops attacking black people
Anyone can selectively draw different anecdotes to paint a narrative sympathetic to their prejudices and biases, for example:http://downtrend.com/71superb/black-cop-shoots-and-kills-6-year-old-white-boy-with-autism
How much mainstream media attention did that story receive compared to Tamir Rice et al?
>>89681>We can compare the NCVS data to nationwide arrest data and see if there is a discrepency, if the police were unfairly targeting blacks on a nationwide scale, systematically, you would expect to see black people arrested at above the rate at which they are reported to have committed certain crimes, except the complete opposite is true.
Source?>Anyone can selectively draw different anecdotes to paint a narrative sympathetic to their prejudices and biases,
I'm pretty sure the volume of news stories I can pull up of white cops killing black children will be higher than vice versa, which is where my issue lies.
>I'm pretty sure the volume of news stories I can pull up of white cops killing black children will be higher than vice versa, which is where my issue lies.
And yet more whites are killed by police in the US:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/?page=all
>>89678>A specific amount of blacks do commit a disproportionate amount of crime
What does this even mean? It's always a "specific group" of people committing crime within a population so mentioning it seems moot.
Either blacks commit disproportionate amounts of criminality or they don't.
Could you direct me to articles that deal more specifically with black people being arrested below
the rate at actual crime reports? Both links seem quite generalized on crime/crime rates.>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/?page=all
More whites are killed probably because the US is made up of more white people than black people, so it isn't as surprising. The fact that even white people aren't exempt just says that the US police as an institution needs to be checked and possibly rehauled. A group known for disproportionate amounts of crime probably gets even worse treatment, as well.>>89697
It makes sense, unless you're trying to conclude that the entire black population (which is only around 13%) is responsible for various crimes. Logically, only around 3% could feasibly be criminals, IIRC. A lot of documentation also seems to overlook repeat offenders (which I doubt are a small group), which is odd, too.
File: 1462221911120.jpg (106.24 KB, 850x685, Fig-4.jpg)
>>89716>Could you direct me to articles that deal more specifically with black people being arrested below the rate at actual crime reports? Both links seem quite generalized on crime/crime rates.
Here's a breakdown for the arrest data as compared to the NCVS data for 2013, if you can't be bothered to compare the raw datasets.
>More whites are killed probably because the US is made up of more white people than black people, so it isn't as surprising. The fact that even white people aren't exempt just says that the US police as an institution needs to be checked and possibly rehauled. A group known for disproportionate amounts of crime probably gets even worse treatment, as well.
Here's where you are wrong though. You would expect
the rate at which blacks are killed by police to be higher than the rate at which whites are killed because
blacks commit more crime and are consequently arrested by police at a greater rate. Similarly, Asians are significantly less likely to be shot by police than Whites are, which doesn't tally with a narrative of a police force that "vicitmizes" minorities, so these facts have to be spun into the narrative too.
Incidentally, psychological examinations show that police are actually less
likely to shoot black suspects than white ones:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/5/police-officers-more-hesitant-to-shoot-black-suspe/?page=all>>89721>kill all whites
Not kill, just reduce to minority status in every formerly white nation. This is simple arithmetic (immigration + differential birth rates).
>that women who don't believe in white power deserve to be raped by whatever group
>and they are white supermacists
In the sense everyone prefers their own group and culture I guess, but then again you may as well call every ethnic group on the planet "supremacists" by that definition.
Not sure. From 15 of the 22 offenses listed, blacks are arrested at below
the rate they are reported on the NCVS/NIBRS, so you can hardly claim the police are victimizing blacks.
There is no uniform "/pol/ opinion" as /pol/ is a mix of constitutionalists, traditionalists, center-rightists, libertarians, National Socialists etc.
If there was one thing that could unite all of them policy wise it would be stricter laws regarding immigration and settlement (naturalization/permanent residence). That's hardly retarded and certainly not comparable to we wuz kings.
Thanks for actually backing up your points, I didn't know about this.>Incidentally, psychological examinations show that police are actually less likely to shoot black suspects than white ones
According to the article, this is linked directly to recent social outcry in cases where black people were shot. It's not far off to say that if there wasn't such an explosion of coverage on cases where cops kill black people to begin with, the results of that study would be quite different.
>>89737>According to the article, this is linked directly to recent social outcry in cases where black people were shot. It's not far off to say that if there wasn't such an explosion of coverage on cases where cops kill black people to begin with, the results of that study would be quite different.
That's my point. A false media narrative, that police are more likely to shoot a black man ceteris paribus, has made police less effective in doing their job.
Understand the way the media works. The Editors come in in the morning, read Reuters/AFP/etc and pick from the wires the stories they want to feature.
They could just as well have run back to back coverage of white victims of police violence, but they didn't. It was a conscious choice. >>89738
What specifically is retarded about them? You think actually having non-porous borders and not letting anyone who washes up on your shores have some sort of "route to citizenship" is retarded? lol. I guess every government on earth with the exception of Western European/North American ones is retarded by that measure.
Mainstream /pol/ seriously believes in systematic "white genocide" - and they call it that -(as opposed to some racial groups simply breeding more than others naturally), rees at commercials that feature any sort of interracial couple that includes a white person, agrees with the one drop rule, and paradoxically believes that whites are superior to all races, but they are being "oppressed" by every other raccial group, especially Jews. I think that alone puts them on the same level as black Tumblr, except even black Tumblr isn't as psuedo-intellectual and pompous.
Black Twitter/Tumblr seems happy to admit that it runs on feelings, while stormfags pretend that they have information backing them by either literally making "fact" images in MS Paint to look legit (trust me, it's a thing), posting grainy, unsourced graphs that might not even be labelled (just one bar going above another), or making weird extrapolations off existing data and twisting statistics to fit some bullshit narrative/fanfiction. When you blast them, stormfags resort to calling you a butthurt nigger or claim that you must be a "liberal" over and over until you stop posting, and then they claim victory. Black Tumblr will call you a white supremacist troll, make up "disses" that may/may not actually be funny, and then block you. If they have a following of any sort, their fans will probably message you telling you to kill yourself.
I've come to this conclusion from being exposed to the cancer of both sides.
File: 1462223816847.jpeg (203.34 KB, 900x900, image.jpeg)
I should go to bed lmao
File: 1462224092746.jpeg (28.85 KB, 750x284, image.jpeg)
This nigger in pic related tells YT shawty over here that they cannot aint no sayin' da N word G hellz yah nigga only black pple canz sayin the n word niggerzzzz muh niggarzzzzzz sup muh niggerrrrr chimp choomp badalala doo boo
>>89744>as opposed to some racial groups simply breeding more than others naturally
It's not just a matter of differential birth rates in of itself, it's a matter of differential birth rates in a given Nation. Japan has low birth rates but doesn't have to worry about being minoritized because they don't allow for many people to permanently settle (despite, contrary to popular opinion, having a fair few work visa programs).
>while stormfags pretend that they have information backing them by either literally making "fact" images in MS Paint to look legit (trust me, it's a thing), posting grainy, unsourced graphs that might not even be labelled (just one bar going above another), or making weird extrapolations off existing data and twisting statistics to fit some bullshit narrative/fanfiction.
What specific claims are you referring to?
>rees at commercials that feature any sort of interracial couple
I think it's fair to get a bit annoyed at the fact interracial couples in the media are overwhelmingly BM/WF. It's not even exclusively white people who complain about that after all.
>I've come to this conclusion from being exposed to the cancer of both sides.
Yeah, you're just an unbiased observer. And your account of things totally doesn't cast blacks in a more positive/nonchalant light.>>89746>Well how about hate crimes against blacks?
The vast majority of interracial crime in the US is black on white. Not only that, but blacks are over two times as likely as whites to commit a racially motivated "hate crime".
File: 1462224184837.jpeg (34.19 KB, 750x150, image.jpeg)
PROOF BLACK PEOPLE SAY THE N WORD WITH AN ER AT THE END
>>89757>muh oppression olympics!!
You made a point about interracial crime/hate crime, as if the two instances are comparable. They aren't. For example, in 2005, white on black rapes didn't even register on the nationwide statistics, in reverse, there were over 33,000 cases of black on white rape in that same year.
So no, the two cases are not like and like. Don't try and pretend they are. White people do not victimize black people on anywhere near the same scale black people victimize white people.
LOL, you dumb nigger bitch WE dont say it the same way niggers do not average normie innocent white people singing along to nigger music. White people have been saying ONLY nigger in 2016 because they are singing along to rap music.
Black people will kill you if you say niggas in paris. Give me one reason why you shouldnt hate niggers.
ALLAH MADE WHITE WOMEN THE MOST BEAUTIFUL BECAUSE HE BLESSED THEM http://www.strawpoll.me/10113842
DO NOT CONVERT TO ISLAM HOWEVER OR YOU'LL DEGENERATE WHITE CULTURE IS BEST CULTURE
File: 1462224926363.png (364.01 KB, 825x343, oRdtS2Q.png)
>>89768>statistical evidence>brain damage
go back to picking on 15 year olds or fantasizing about becoming the next dakota rose.
You're playing with the big boys now.
File: 1462224933396.jpeg (13.02 KB, 284x177, image.jpeg)
I wish I was white so badly
The average white woman's beauty cannot even surpasses the most beautiful negress. Naomi Campbell for example is what "they" consider to be beautiful. But if you have to ask me she looks SHIT.
>>89752>It's not just a matter of differential birth rates in of itself, it's a matter of differential birth rates in a given Nation.
How is this genocide in any way, shape or form?
>What specific claims are you referring to?
There aren't any "specific" ones I'm referring to, this is just a thing that happens quite often in several discussions on /pol/. It's why I'm sick of the place. "This amount of Somali people rape and kill in Sweden, and it's increased the rates of both crimes as a whole for the nation" somehow becomes "Black people are human/ape hybrids created in laboratories by the Jews to destroy the white race", "Japanese people don't care about Miss Japan being half-black" becomes "The Jews have taken hold of Glorious Nipland and forced them to accept a nigger in their society", "Koreans have a lot of plastic surgery" becomes "Koreans and all other Asians are trying their hardest to look like the glorious white race", etc etc. Mere observation is compounded with irrational opinions and conspiracy theories. It's ugly.>I think it's fair to get a bit annoyed at the fact interracial couples in the media are overwhelmingly BM/WF.
Or AF/WM. Even then, interracial couples are not even that popular in the media, and the main /pol/ rhetoric is that it's "media brainwashing to make white women date black men". Meanwhile, in real life, BM/WF relationships are at like 2% in the population.>Yeah, you're just an unbiased observer. And your account of things totally doesn't cast blacks in a more positive/nonchalant light.
I am an unbiased observer. At least black Tumblr doesn't put on an air of sanity. You walk in and immediately know these people are retarded and hateful for no good reason, while /pol/ tries their hardest to rationalize their foolish beliefs to you until you realize you shouldn't have wasted your time listening to begin with.
File: 1462225272724.jpg (68.85 KB, 578x392, think-of-the-children1.jpg)
>>89770>go back to picking on 15 year olds
Wheew lad, you really want to fuck that 15 year old.
I don't understand why you brought her up here if you knew she shot up heroin, was a camslut, and a general idiot when this website is literally dedicated to laughing at cows just like that.
>>89773>How is this genocide in any way, shape or form?
I didn't use the term "genocide", I used the term minoritization.
>"Black people are human/ape hybrids created in laboratories by the Jews to destroy the white race"
Never heard this claim before.
> "The Jews have taken hold of Glorious Nipland and forced them to accept a nigger in their society"
Sounds to me like the Japanese were more annoyed by this than any European, going by 2ch comments.
>"Koreans and all other Asians are trying their hardest to look like the glorious white race"
I wouldn't say they're trying to look white, but they're certainly often imitating features found more commonly among Europeans than East Asians.
Personally I think the plastic surgery thing is overblown, Korea is the only country in Asia where the memes really apply (and honestly, it's rampant there), and that's because they're obsessed with the Asian concept of "face". China and Japan? Much less so. I think this is partly because Koreans have that huge face/tiny eye look common in Mongolians.
AF/WM is more common in real life but is vastly less common in media representation than BM/WF.
>At least black Tumblr doesn't put on an air of sanity.
Uh, what planet do you live on? These people really do believe the American establishment is "white supremacist". >>89780
You have no empathy. You're broken inside.
I think it's one guy trying to drag his internet fights all over the place, kek.
I disagreed with him claiming that BBC porn makes black men feel glorified in one thread, then when we both stopped arguing because it was derailment, he proceeded to go into another, similarly unrelated thread and accuse some anon talking about the teenage girl on /r9k/ of being me for some reason. Pretty cringy.
It might actually be Eliza shilling herself on lolcow. Seems too random for some dude to just start accusing us of bashing 15 year old camwhores when almost everyone we shit on is over 18.
Really surprised that little tard hasn't drawn the irk of anons yet.
Thanks, anon.>>89782>I didn't use the term "genocide", I used the term minoritization.
I'm not saying you used it, I'm asking you to justify /pol/ referring to it as such. Not going to try my hardest to address your justifications of the examples of /pol/ rhetoric I used because they're just that, examples, and I'm not trying to rehash discussions I've already had and been disappointed by. >Sounds to me like the Japanese were more annoyed by this than any European, going by 2ch comments.
2ch comments are worth about as much as 4chan comments. Reactionaries posting the most "controversial" opinion just for the sake of being controversial. I don't suppose you go to /b/ to hear Americans' opinions on Hitler.>Uh, what planet do you live on? These people really do believe the American establishment is "white supremacist".
…I said they don't put on an air of sanity. You can tell they're not logical off the bat. Did you not read my post?
Because you don't believe 15 year olds are actually responsible for their decisions and seriously believe smoking pot is as bad as shooting heroin.
It's because you're a dumbass.
>>89816>the law usually protects their idioticy
And no it doesn't if their stupidity is serious enough.
Do you think repeat thieves, drug dealers, and murderers get away with their actions just because they're underage?
If anyone leaked Eliza's dox the first thing I'd do is submit a CPS report and tip the police.
File: 1462315241148.jpeg (178.47 KB, 900x598, image.jpeg)
Alessia, the thing is, Russians are often really white (except the turksroaches and other mixed balkan mutts) and sicillians and a lot of italians pass for middle eastern, north african and EAST AFRICAN even. And not all italians/sicillians are white and you are so insecure like iranians and other plebanese people who can be so goddamn dark. Black arabs exist too but that doesnt make them brown arabs or white arabs it makes them black arabs because their skin color is not brown or white.
If a stranger sees your face and thinks you are not white, you're not white. White = a phenotype and if you do not belong in that category you're not white regardless what your nationality is. If you look like pic related you are only politically white and that is the only reason why stormfront thinks you are white. They would not consider a lets say blonde afghan girl, even though she is probably 70% russian, white because they are proeurope. A black european is not white. Brown italians are not "white" period. How many brown italians do I have to post so you understand it?
I noticed its always the shitskins that are so insecure. Not proud to be shitskin but at least I admit I'm not white.
File: 1462315363960.png (289.66 KB, 370x503, image.png)
Alessia pic related is maybe a pure italian but she is not phenotypically white in any book
File: 1462315427002.jpeg (36.12 KB, 550x379, image.jpeg)
How can you possibly think tumblr mistakes russian women for white?
File: 1462315490587.jpeg (48.03 KB, 636x421, image.jpeg)
Poc I mean*
Another italian celebrity, her features are 100% yemeni/east african
File: 1462315812560.png (694.5 KB, 750x750, image.png)
How is this white?
Hint: it's not, it's just politically.
Anyways, brown italians can identify however they want but insecure italians should not force them to identify as white especially if they look like fucking sandniggers. Otherwise niggers in europe can identify as white too.
P.S russians and real white women are the most beautiful women in the world
File: 1462316076915.jpeg (6.17 KB, 259x194, images.jpeg)
Yeah.. sure. Whatever m8
File: 1462316432699.jpg (109.14 KB, 660x495, Gc7IFzZ.jpg)
nobody could beat this beauty!
File: 1462316490395.jpeg (32.07 KB, 236x314, image.jpeg)
ay lmao very constructive. We're discussing something and here you are being like a fucking nigger. What did I say wrong? Brown italians are not white, they are brown but because of political reasons they can be seen as white. point out the flaws and I might force every brown skinned kinky haired italian that he/she is w h i t e
Oh lol I'm tired didnt see your post
Well in GENERAL they are prettier
File: 1462316717064.jpg (16.6 KB, 236x314, 54f0b0b15a1b9b684d77015d7cb03a…)
Whatever you say lad. Behold! White woman beauty
Said that white women were the most beautiful in the whole wide world! Whats so bad about posting photos of white women? REAL white women.
File: 1462316892672.jpg (56.07 KB, 600x466, 571d13002a15111547358202afe9e7…)
You can hate yourself all you want. Beauty is only skin deep. Being brainwashed is your problem not mine.
File: 1462317325562.jpeg (29.83 KB, 324x346, image.jpeg)
Welllll but technically they are. Like there are black women/arabs/asians who can be really beautiful but at average you can find more white women who are butiful. But perhaps its because I prefer simple facial features and sleek hair.>>90069
Literally what? I dont care about the balkan cuntries, they are ugly people anyways. i just sympathize with greece lel.
File: 1462317461901.jpg (210.14 KB, 542x700, aOavusb.jpg)
looks like a lab rat to me anon.
Heres the woman of anon DWEAMS.
File: 1462317651758.jpg (29.76 KB, 600x450, hurrrduuurr.jpg)
aww I feel bad you are saddened by the supiwior beauty of white wimmins!
File: 1462317784950.jpg (18 KB, 600x450, Ichooseutoiletsan.jpg)
Goodnight stay brainwashed.
File: 1462317921149.jpg (85.89 KB, 500x516, whitewimminsizdapurtiestest.jp…)
Lol Forgot one
Why would I even be saddened by it?…At least make your lame attempts at insults make sense.
Those women may look like shit, but at least they don't have high rates of Aids, low IQs, ridiculous crime rates, high rates of teenage pregnancy, high rates of hep and whatever else being black makes you more statistically likely to be. Why are you so obsessed with looks? Is that all blacks have to offer? Their bodies? How…Sad.
Oh and as a bonus incest. Yeah the thing you like to mock whites for, is rife in africa. Cousin marriages are very common there. Tumblr would have a haemorrhage.
Read some stats one day, stats from various sources, countries and organisations. Stats on education, stats on crime, stats on diseases and stats on poverty. Note how even the poorest shittiest chinese communities in london have stellar crime rates compared to the black areas. How indians have incredible IQs even when they're from modest backgrounds. Just stare those cold hard facts in the face and accept that races differ.
File: 1462318231669.jpeg (136.73 KB, 1080x1069, image.jpeg)
>>90074>mfw I did a dna ancestry test and I turned out 14% nigger.
Which is funny because my mother hates niggers and she thinks its just static noise. Anyways, point is, I am not a butthurt nignog.>>90072>>90075
But pic related isn't really ugly huh?
But most white women are so naive and stupid, I give you that.
File: 1462318347790.png (323.45 KB, 800x480, LOL.png)
Typical white woman at 38
Anon, anon, Your hatred is all YOUR opinion. There are plenty of stupid white people as there are anyone else. same goes for Std's and other failures simply because white people are just people. Cry somewhere else.
White people have higher rates of cystic fibrosis, idolization of teen pregnancy through shows like 16 & Pregnant, higher rates of skin cancer, higher likelihood of drug abuse (though minorities are arrested more often for it), higher rates of school shooters/serial killers, are/were literally so filthy they introduced the plague to other races, etc. You should probably get off your high horse. >Why are you so obsessed with looks? Is that all blacks have to offer? Their bodies? How…Sad.
Pretty sure white people are the first ones to cry "Other races are ugly!" even if they themselves look inbred as fuck, but okay. You can even see it happening in this thread.>Cousin marriages are very common there.>Cousin marriage rates from most African nations outside the Middle East are unknown.
That's far from "very common", especially when the numbers given are a rough estimate, and any/all examples of it can be chalked up to one specific Nigerian ethnic group doing it, and then a very small community/subset of another ethnic group, also in Nigeria, partaking in it. You are a retard, congratulations.>Read some stats one day.
Which you clearly haven't, unless they're cherrypicked statistics to forward some foolish agenda. For example, low IQ in Africa can often be chalked up to rampant disease, trauma from abuse and/or war fucking up a person's cognitive abilities, not "hurr their just dumb niggers amirite xD". The playing field isn't the exact same for every race, which is why they're not actually comparable. You're a racist, though, so you probably don't think that far.
Plus, in at least one popular study on IQ in Africa, the evaluator literally ignored any and all African people who didn't fit into a specific category of low IQ because they were trying to push an ultimately biased racial narrative. If that's a "thing", it literally bends the reliability of any and all IQ tests conducted by people who are not of the same racial group as the test-takers.
=WHITE GENOCIDE PROVEN==
Helmuth Nyborg argues that non-white immigration and improved health care (contraception, lowered infant mortality, etc) are tag-teaming the West's genetic fitness.
>This article briefly describes Lynn’s view on what makes modern populations rise and fall. It then provides
>a demographic analysis of what happens to modern sub-fertile high-IQ Western populations when
Internal Relaxation of Darwinian Selection (IRDS) combines with External Relaxation (ERDS, in the form
of super-fertile low-IQ non-Western immigration) into Double Relaxation of Darwinian Selection (DRDS).
The genotypic IQ decline will ruin the economic and social infrastructure needed for quality education,
welfare, democracy and civilization. DRDS is currently unopposed politically, so existing fertility differentials
may eventually lead to Western submission or civil resistance.https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/nyborg-2011-the-decay-of-western-civilization-double-relaxed-darwinian-selection.pdf
File: 1463770013443.png (520.29 KB, 900x668, Capture.PNG)
So it turns out a key figure in BlackLivesMatter was pimping an underage (17 year old) white girl.
Jezebel (surprisingly) actually ran the story:http://jezebel.com/black-lives-matter-activist-accused-of-trafficking-17-y-1777632638
Check out the comments, quite a few black women defending the guy, saying the white girl was probably a liar and literally defending pimps.
Hope FOX run with this story for ages and run these worthless race hustling pieces of shit into the ground.
Fuck BLM and fuck black women too, had enough of their jealousy.
File: 1463980225852.jpg (19.46 KB, 700x394, 6ICTYkt.jpg)
Honestly what's the issue? Refugees and Migrants may not have had the same standard of sex ed. as Europeans, and it teaches them German social norms allowing the refugees/migrants a better chance of intergrating with German society.
If you actually read the website it is no different to any other school lesson or hospital leaflet.
English version of said websitehttp://www.zanzu.de/en/home
File: 1464102329719.gif (1.09 MB, 500x304, 923992902.gif)
I'm mixed and even I think the white apologists have gone too far.
People need to stop forcing the interracial meme and just let people fuck whoever they want.
The illustration is retarded and could have used blue and red(or pink) instead and gotten the same results.
For the lack of better words I want C U C K S(yeah i said it) to stop glorifying interracial relationships/forcing them down everyone's throats
It seems like you guys didn't even visit the site. It has around the same amount of dark m/light f, light m/dark f, dark/dark and light/light illustrations.
>just let people fuck whoever they want
And you let illustrators color their illustrations the way they want. Jesus, if there are blacks in a picture, it's GloRIfYIing anD ForCinG IntErRacialiTy and if there are whites, it's RacIsM and OpreSShun!! Fuck being an illustrator these days, there is no winning with you fucktards
File: 1464103518921.jpg (55.17 KB, 955x529, suck baby suck.JPG)
Dropped my pic of the first place I found that had pictures
Why does it need to be interracial?
Interracial relationships are statistically more dysfunctional, let's not encourage dysfunctional things.
Who said anything needs to be interracial?
The website is aimed for migrants, who more often than not aren't the same race as the people of the country they migrated to. Some of them will fall for someone from a different race, so it's kind of logical that the site has different kinds of illustrations. Of course they could have pink females and blue males, but that would look ugly and tumblr anime as fuck, and nobody wants to see that.
Most relationships are dysfunctional anyway, so
Who even cares? Nothing is "encouraged" just because it's shown on some kind of guide where it's not even the main focus. People who are not interested in interracial dating won't suddenly get interested because of some picture or commercial they saw.
Paranoid racist people are weird.
>>94141>environment is the reason women are feminine and don't want to become engineers >environment doesn't affect your romantic preferences
Think of it like this. Do you think it's a coincidence so many white girls who like k pop also like Korean men?
You are absolutely right, I feel like being a black man licking some brown titties after seeing these drawings >>93909
Oh how wrong I was! How naive!
Do you think interacial relationships only exist in the west, and that every one from Asian countries has the same skin tone?
Stop being ignorant and racist, it's boring.
>>94175>strawmanning this hard
I didn't even say that first line of greentext, but okay.
If you don't want to have sex with someone, you won't have sex with them even if you see someone else having sex with them on television.
Not hard to grasp.
Great. Now I looked at those drawings too, and I feel different now…I hunger for brown titties as well.
W-what is happening???
File: 1464253309417.jpg (292.62 KB, 1280x844, tumblr_nlw6jf4gRp1u11twxo1_128…)
I want to have a white boyfriend so I can cheat on him with a big hung black guy and make him feel like the insecure piece of shit he is.
File: 1464253978588.jpg (26.06 KB, 600x400, photo-24755449-black-guy-showi…)
How the fuck am I supposed to look at pic related and not get wet? Do white men expect me to give up my basic womanhood for them? I'm a person just like you are, woman are programed to find this shit hot, yet white men want to deny us of our sexuality. You say you want "feminine woman", yet you hate woman for having mannerisms that are fundamentally feminine.
Date who you want. I'd be a hypocrite if I told you not to since I've dated Asian girls.
Don't see why the comments derogatory to white men are necessary though.
File: 1464258059513.jpg (366.36 KB, 1000x666, beautifulblackman.jpg)
I've just found your ideal type
File: 1464259663075.png (35.05 KB, 691x627, 1.png)
What comments derogatory to white men?
>>94275>How the fuck am I supposed to look at pic related and not get wet?
Really anon? He has the gayest face ever kek
And for the body… there's tons of white guys like this. If you post the typical fit black guy I can get it but this look is more common among gym addict white guys than blacks
File: 1464277948861.jpg (44.11 KB, 500x667, 982373289.jpg)
I'm just saying, they didn't need to give the illustrations race since it breeds into people's heads to expect other people of other races will fuck them when in reality most I've noticed tend to stick to their own race with the exception of white dudes, refugees, and nigs who can't wait to not have to deal with their bat shit crazy women.
It sort of makes me glad I'm mixed and never have to deal with any of that stuff, I can fuck whoever I want and no one will judge me and call me racist for favoring one race over another
File: 1464348376267.jpg (388.88 KB, 1972x892, 1464347819846.jpg)
File: 1464511006150.jpg (Spoiler Image, 130.02 KB, 500x665, tumblr_ni15izEhjY1u1ee0wo1_500…)
But who cares? People will date who they want in the end, illustrations or no.>Oh boy this picture in a guide gets me all horny for brown girls! I found them disgusting before, but this drawing!! Holy fuck!
So all those k-pop fangirls just had a genetic level attraction to plastic idols before the fact?
lol. Funny how some of you switch between "it's genetic" and "it's the environment" depending upon what's ideologically convenient.
>>94752>So all those k-pop fangirls just had a genetic level attraction to plastic idols before the fact?
Wot. Some people just like Asian pop culture, and the appearance of some Asian people. It's not rocket science.
What are you even trying to say? That all weeaboos and koreaboos were brainwashed by the Jews into liking things? Jesus.>Funny how some of you switch between "it's genetic" and "it's the environment" depending upon what's ideologically convenient.
Point out where I used either argument (or even either of the words "genetic" or "environment") in this discussion, or quit strawmanning. You just look retarded. Don't bother replying with "I didn't say YOU, I said SOME OF YOU!!!1" either, lol.
It's pretty simply anon, either it's informed by environment or it's informed by genes, or as is more likely, it's informed by a mixture of both - like most behavioral traits.
Learn to keep up.
was clearly asking a loaded question with certain premade assumptions behind it. It's best to ignore shit like that.
anon is mad at the fact that their feeble mind is becoming attracted to brown people.
File: 1464587521295.jpg (880.75 KB, 1744x2766, 1464582189050.jpg)
>>94840>hurr durr ur weakminded
yeah nice counter argument however you can't deny the fact people are easily influenced by things they consume.>>94891
I'm half brown, dipshit. No where in any of my posts did I say I was or wasn't attracted to brown people so nice projection there.
Obviously the Chinese and Japanese are going to be against a guy who wants to restrict the virtually free access they've had to the US domestic marketplace over the past few decades anon.
The rest I see no reason to comment on. Trudeau's a fucking retard whose first act upon assuming his office was to sign a huge free trade deal with China that will further gut Canadian industry, Middle Eastern shitholes don't have much of a right to speak about anything, Valls is an incompetent just like every other French PM for the past 20 years, Merkel presided over the most catastrophic demographic policy mistake a nation has ever made in their entire history (the "refugee" crisis), Jacob Zuma is a corrupt retard who thinks showers can cure AIDS, the Swedish FM is lunatic fringe left, Rousseff is facing down corruption charges that will lead to jail time as we speak, Ortega and Raul Castro… Seriously?
I could go on but you get the point.
Incidentally, regarding Fox and Mexico - Mexico have far, far tougher laws regarding illegal immigration than the US does. So they really have no room to complain. >>95093
The US is too economically powerful for people to simply isolate.
Yeah, yeah. Putin is a Bond villain and he hates gays, I know because the Guardian told me. Only thing is that everything he has done foreign policy wise has been rational and well within the bounds of national interest - The US knew they'd provoke conflict in the Ukraine with the color revolution there and the attempt to seize Crimea. Russia's entire existence hinges on that warm-water port, they were always
going to be prepared to fight a war over it and every Pentagon strategist worth his salt knew it. So why provoke them?
You'd get used to Trump anon, because he hasn't even started going through Clinton's closet yet.
t. not even American, before you fly off the handle.
File: 1464670119363.png (2.32 MB, 1024x1727, 1464668966943.png)
Trump was personally involved in the creation of Trump memes
You need to be a highly manipulative and evil person to succeed in this system. Most wealthy people work in some kind of sales or marketing, their job is basically telling lies. These narcissistic and superficial people find a good woman and then cheat on her, she eventually finds out and it poisons the well.
Ugly women get zero attention from decent human beings, they are happy to be abused and ridiculed just for companionship.
Beautiful women are like circling hyenas preying on the married sadomasochistic guy who uses his cucked wife as a shield and cheats with all of them.
The majority of underachieving pathetic men are happy to take any crumbs that fall from the high table of money wealth and power.
You will never find a beautiful, virginal, pure, innocent, 21 year old girl, who is faithful, wants to have children, and explore her sexuality with you.
Never. You will never.
Probably because they don't want to labelled racist (I've noticed that women being called out get harsher treatment than men being called out) and because they don't care about their homeland as much as men do.
I was venting on my personal blog about how it's frustrating that the left covers up refugees committing rape, without a single mention of race - mind you, and I got over twenty messages calling me racist for daring to talk about it.
It's reached a point of absurdity.
Is anybody NOT aware that the holocaust is a big bunch of hooey?
Here's a documentary about it made by a jewish guy:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQjNs-Ght8s
Here's a more thorough documentary about it made by some guy:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ruD4I4f5LkQ
Here's a 5 minute clip about it for short attention spans:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM
Here's a proxy for Europeans to use to view the previous links (remember! Viewing or disseminating this information can get you jailtime and fines in Europe because questioning holocaust propaganda means you must want to murder people in cold blood!)http://www.proxfree.com/youtube-proxy.php
File: 1467952437725.png (79.06 KB, 591x250, 1467951430216.png)
what do you ladies think about the literal chimpout occurring in dallas?
First reaction is karma, yes I know that is a horrible way to think. Why do 4 police officers deaths gather more public outrage and sympathy that the hundreds of civillians that are murdered? In the UK police manage to restrain and arrest people holding eapons without anyone getting stabbed or shot, hopefully this will lead to greate awareness of just how trigger
happy and incompetent American police officers are and lead to greater training. Doubt it though, nothing will happen, armed officers will still be the norm and more black kids and men will be shot dead.
I assume that if we're on this website, we haven't been living under a rock and have heard this crap before. Please fuck off with your youtube videos, robot.>>101128
Wow, so I did see the Sterling murder video and it was pretty fucked up. I understand the rage. It's not an excuse however.
I just wonder how fucking retarded most police officers to be pulling this shit still? Firing on unarmed black people, after all the negative publicity and protests etc. Did they even graduate elementary school?
I love this "we're better than you" shit.
One. UK niggers are just as bad as American ones.
Two. Niggers here rioted over Mark Thuggan getting killed despite it being a perfectly rational response from cops.
You sweetheart, are a nigger. Go cheer on the ape women at Wimbledon.
Lol anon, African Americans are far worse than Black British. Black Brits are diamonds in comparison. Most crime here in the UK comes from Asians (pakistanis) and white scallies from estates. Blacks cause the most shit in the US.
So fuck off and get your facts right
Wrong. Afro carribeans commit a disproportionate amount of rape and murder in London and Birmingham and Somalians are the most likely ethnic group along with bangers to be on welfare.
How about fuck all non whites. I never said I like pakis and other shitskins did I?
File: 1469449736907.jpg (94.85 KB, 958x719, 12987045_936189986494816_31050…)
Why slav people get so violent about refugees? They don't even want to come here. I don't mind normal opinions about them because of the lastest events and not only but picrel attacking random darker-skinned people who are mostly not even refugees and have lived here for many years is kinda sad.
That's a cringeworthy and completely toothless bunch of wankers.
I would be ashamed of them if I were a cockroach fashy ladm8chap tbh.
No. They actually beat up people with darker complexion.
Smiling people and people wearing non-grey clothes too, most probably.
File: 1469455232061.jpg (11.52 KB, 252x173, turanic mongolism.jpg)
>>104599>I accidentally started laughing at them
I hope Tengri punishes you.
File: 1471639042090.png (138.4 KB, 997x996, ZsKr58.png)
Who's the greater threat? Jews or Muslims?
File: 1472080695450.png (458.4 KB, 549x425, stupid.png)
just saw this shit on tumblr , can't believe people are saying this
i don't want to go to the beach and look at women that are technically slaves showing off that they are slaves
File: 1472094234398.webm (1.08 MB, 320x180, law and order into.webm)
is allowed, but answering a question with a derogatory term towards a white "race" is race-baiting.
I think it's a hard call to make honestly. Not defending that ban in particular, but it's a fine line between what's just a joke and what's legit /pol/ shit or trying to racebait.
Easiest way to deal with it would just be outright saying no jokes or comments that could be construed as racebaiting at all outside of the appropriate threads, but that has issues too, and is too restrictive.
I'd hope if that's the only similar post that anon has made that they do get unbanned though, because that was unnecessary.
Feels like /snow/'s overwhelmed trying to keep threads from turning into whining about if a cow's good looking or not though.
File: 1472109249562.jpg (52.76 KB, 636x612, article-3610934-34A80A9D000005…)
Jews have a wall
Jews actively go against race-mixing
Jews can be openly racist
Jews fund Trump
Jews also fund Hillary
Muslims and Jews donate to colleges/universities worldwide
Muslims gift mosques instead of taking more migrants into Saudi Arabia etc.
Jews are making a deal with Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia is Muslim territory
Muslims (Arab/Black) are the main individuals going against the moronic Western norm of "muh Tumblr" right now
Jews insist more Muslims must enter Europe and American/Canadian grounds
Jews say they can't take in migrants because they will lose their people and culture
Muslims (Arab/black) can be openly racist
Jews admitted Germany only exists to support Israel
Jews run the European Union
Africans kicked out Jews for being manipulative
Jews were historically kicked out of over 100 countries for barbaric practices yet still were able to survive and return
Jews disproportionately own more companies than natives to the countries they inhabit
Jews are able to ramp up the Holocaust figures to 23 million deaths
>The dominant must overcome the weak "lads"
I don't think the poor Palestinians who have had their land stolen by American and European Jewish immigrants would think that way though.
Israel defies the UN and many human rights laws, they enforce apartheid and view themselves as being superior. Zionists and Saudi's are just as bad as each other.
Some people have sensitive skin that sunscreen will not provide adequate protection, also hiding an explosive in a skin tight suit is a bit tricky!
Why say Muslims don't belong in France, they are likely to have been born and bred there. Christianity is also a Middle Eastern religion, does that not have a place in France as well?
Honestly if you are that offended by a grown woman on a beach wearing a wetsuit and swimming cap you got problems.
You could hide an explosive device in a lot of beachwear and even regular clothing. You could just be lazy and stick it in your bag. Even beach kaftans are looser fitting than burkinis and it'd be easier to hide stuff under them than under wetsuit material, but they're still allowed.
Also, you realise protective clothing and suncreen work best together, right? That's why it's recommendeded you use both sunscreen and some form of physical block, like a hat or parasol. Why should people use only one form of sun protection just because you're pissy about a glorified wetsuit? Damn, sis,
File: 1472258403529.jpg (186.12 KB, 964x639, ad_201671569-e1459589338805.jp…)
I've seen people wearing burkinis and never realised it until it came up in the news. It's just a wetsuit, cap and sometimes a swim skirt. When I first heard "burkini" I was legit imagining a big floaty burka where only eyes were visible but it looks like the type of swim gear I've seen surfers, divers and professional swimmers wear.
Would you also be cool with Muslims coming up to you on the beach and harassing you and calling you a whore for wearing a bikini, and then grabbing hatchets and using them to attack the men who come to your defence? Because that's what was going on in France and why those bans happened.
Luckily though the French supreme court overturned the bans today so we can all hope for a near future where all women keep their whore bodies covered on French beaches.
I get burned easily. I would wear this if I ever left my computer to go to a place for swimming.
The last time I went to the beach, I sat under the umbrella the whole time.
Doesn't it get fierce cold when you get out of the water though?
I'm a competitive swimmer so I mostly walk around in a onepiece but it's so much colder than the bikini unless you're swimming indoors. Even the slightest breeze feels ice cold.
I'll take things that didnt happpen for $200>>108488
At least you can take what happens in Germany for $200
If niqabs get banned, so will all other religious clothing in Deutschland.
Those weren't "terrorists", those were "normal" Muslim families at a beach in Corsica.
I suppose you also support allowing hijabs in schools and niqabs everywhere, so young girls can freely exercise their feminist right to wear them to avoid being called a filthy whore and threatened with rape every minute of every day.
If someone wishes to wear a scarf over their hair, who cares. In Christianity women were and still are required to cover their hair and dress modestly, this can also be seen in many other religions and cultures. Heck Jewish women even wear wigs .
Why are you so threatened by a swimsuit? You see kids wearing the exact same outfit should they be forced to strip down too because apparently covering up on the beach is offensive to French law.
Why do you think it's ok for little children to be forcibly almost completely covered in a religious symbol of female subservience?
France has values, which include that women are considered free and equal to men, not cattle to be permanently kept in servitude and humiliation. France is French land, not Islamic land, so when there is a conflict of values it's French values that should win.
I'm a lefty but I really despise hippie peace love and equality, and most of all, feels, above rational evidence based on science and deductive reasoning.
For example, there is clear scientific data showing that blacks have lower IQs by about 15 points on average, or one standard deviation. This difference in scores cannot be eliminated even with intensive early education programs. Furthermore, to think that black culture has nothing to do with why blacks commit so many crimes or why their unemployment rate is so high or teen pregnancy, abortion rate, single mothers, poverty rate, etc. is just ridiculous.
This comes from people who have lived all their life in white suburbia and have barely even seen a black person in their life. They just say blacks are just as smart and hardworking and honest, but the white man is oppressing them and it forces them to act that way, or that it's just racism by police and juries. The truth is that most of the blacks causing problems are borderline retarded, if not outright retarded and grew up with shitty parents, or more likely, a shitty mother and father who was in jail or otherwise absent. They had no one to teach them how to behave.
Cash incentives for black mothers to attend mothering classes so they can learn how to bond with their children properly would help reduce the number of black psychopaths, but sadly I doubt it would have a large effect.
IMO the schools have to take over and do what the parent's can't. This will include having younger black male teachers teaching the boys, and women teaching the girls for the majority of classes. Studies have shown that performance for male students in a class taught by women suffer, and the performance of female students in a class taught by male teachers suffer. Young black boys especially need a strong male role model to do well. Plus, these would have to teach things that schools don't normally teach because parents are normally supposed to handle that sort of thing, so smaller, more intimate class sizes that would have some of the teachers teach the same class of kids from k-12 would be required.
Blacks in inner city schools nowadays get greenhorn teachers who couldn't get a position at a better school, likely because they're not very competent. They put in their couple of years and then transfer and a new crop of rejects takes their place.
There are enough competent, good, normal black people that you could easily find enough of them to pass down morals to a new generation, but unfortunately, no one wants to talk about it because it acknowledges problems the liberals wan't to pretend don't exist, and it would be very expensive, but what they fail to see are the massive savings down the road. If you can solve social problems, you can recoup the costs of whatever damages were being done by the social problem, and in this case, that's clearly immense.
Also, I am completely in favor of government spending on things that benefit society but don't make money as they're the only ones in a position to do that. If the government gives jobs to low skilled ex convicts who can't find work doing stuff like environmental cleanup or park maintenance/expansion, or public infrastructure works, it could only do good. People say, why should you commit a crime and get a job? That's getting rewarded for doing something bad! Sure, that may be true but it still doesn't change the fact that it's better to have a convict become a functioning member of both society and the economy, rather than just going back to being a welfare leach and committing more crimes. Trials cost taxpayer dollars too. Someone has to pay for the public defender and the judge and the prosecutor. Locking someone up costs money too. In the long run, paying the few convicts who actually want to change to do so is a net plus savings.
This is just one example of all the shit that aggravates me from the left, especially since it often comes from very intelligent and well-educated people. They're just wearing rose-colored glasses. Oh well, it's much better than the shit I see from the right-wingers. Boy howdee have they just fucking lost it these days.
First of all nobody is forcing anyone to remove anything, that woman could have just left the beach. That she removed her burkini instead shows that this wasn't even about modesty but an act of provocation.
Second of all this isn't value neutral. Nobody used to wear burkinis until recently, and doing so carries political meaning, specifically a belief in the inferiority of women, hostility to France and French values, and an attempt at separating themselves from other French people and affirming their identity as a foreign community. Not wearing a burkini on the other hand carries nothing of the sort and is the norm in French culture.
Fucking look outside your little bubble sometime.
Another case just reported, last Thursday a woman in France was beaten bloody and got her bikini bottom torn off for sunbathing topless. And this isn't happening only in France, I don't especially keep up with the news but I remember one recent case of a gang of Muslims storming a nudist swimming pool in Germany and attacking people while threatening to murder all the women for being sluts. And German swimming pools are no longer safe for women to wear normal swimsuits in since Muslims consider that an invitation for rape.
Women being slutshamed or physically/sexually assaulted was a problem before the recent muslim drama in the media and it is still a problem not because of Islam but society in general.
But hey lets compare a minority of cases concerning muslim men to the thousands of cases where christians and atheists rape and assault women in european countries.
How is wearing a piece of fabric over your hair "provocative' ? She was forced to remove her clothing, a woman being intimidated by police men on a beach forcing her to remove her clothing in front of her family and onlookers and to pay a fine.
Children wear the same burkina style outfit all the time, many women cover up their limbs and drape a scarf over them, who is to say this is wrong just because you have a darker skin tone? There is a famous photo on Nigella Lawson an English chef who is atheist with jewish heritage wearing a burkini, what does your intolerant mind make of that?
File: 1472332959493.jpg (70.04 KB, 634x444, nigella lawson choking.jpg)
Aww yeah, that's what gets you off isn't it.
WTF? The point being that the style of swimsuit has existed before the media started proclaiming it Islamic dress. Children and women have being wearing such suits for years with no problem, why suddenly when a woman who is muslim wears it does the media get triggered
When I first saw the burkini, I thought it looked like a wetsuit, or one of those suits people sometimes wear surfing (which might also be called a wetsuit. Idk).
It is hardly as "Islamic" as people try to make it seem.
Are you trying to say non-Muslim children wear burkinis where you live? What the actual fuck?
The burkini was invented in Australia in 2004, and yes for Muslims obviously. I have never in my life seen anyone wear that except Muslim women in the last couple of years.
File: 1472366172566.png (147.59 KB, 277x358, DSC1822-hi-277x358.png)
No, I think she is saying that "modest swimware" has been a thing before this whole burkini mess started triggering
people. Pic related of one style.
File: 1472366537861.jpeg (17.62 KB, 289x228, 7315347_orig.jpeg)
Here's a different style, advertised for kids.
Those aren't burkinis. >>108542
No I haven't, what the fuck. Is that some Korean thing? Why do they all look horribly shooped?
Anon didn't say they were burkinis, they used them as an example to show that conservative swimwear has always been around. Though >>108540
is basically the same style as a type of burkini, minus the swimcap.
>>108490>The last time I went to the beach, I sat under the umbrella the whole time.
Yeah, it sucks because the only time you wanna go to the beach is when it's sunny but when it's sunny, it's burn time. I always catch the sun on my back and shoulders and I bought one of those long sleeve swim tops and it was awesome.>>108491
I think they might be a slightly thicker material to swimsuits in order to avoid clinginess. I don't know if there's a tighter top underneath the loose one either. I suppose if it's a hot day you'll dry out quickly or they could always change back into regular clothes when they're done swimming.
Exactly. The "long swimsuit/modified wetsuit" style has been out there, and marketed for "modesty" in religious circles for years. Hell, even the fucking duggers on TLC have their kids wear swimsuits like those examples.
I really don't get how slapping the brand "burkini" makes those bathing suits scandalous, or "Islamic".
Again no, this shit didn't exist in France until Muslims created it for Muslims and it was marketed to Muslims and nobody else.
This has been explained to death now and you're either too stupid to understand or you don't want to. So why don't you just mind your own business and stop trying to tell other countries what to do, while quoting a system of values (liberté égalité fraternité) that you clearly don't understand the meaning of. If you want to live in a society where women are property and face harassment, rape, or death for daring to defy Islam, then there is a rapidly increasing number of places for you to choose from. But hopefully France will never be one of them. If that triggers
you so badly just stay out of France, problem solved.
They trademarked the name "burqini" but the clothing is pretty much the same as what anon posted. Why is the name triggering
everybody? If a muslim woman wore a full body swimming costume and didn't call it a burqini, is it suddenly okay?
Exactly, and the exact same style of suit has existed for years before all of this muslim outrage.
Does the triggered
anon get upset when they see anyone on the beach not hanging it all out for everyone to see ? ha
>>108587>Women are catcalled and assaulted by white christian and atheist men every single day
This has happened to me maybe two or three times in my life. Compared to literally hundreds of times from Muslims.
But yeah let's just let ourselves get conquered by the most misogynistic ideology ever conceived, that'll show your dad. When you're legally beaten every day and no longer allowed to go outside except with your face covered and under male escort, just remember all that 1950s Catholic male butthurt that will surely make it all worth it.
>Women are catcalled and assaulted by white christian and atheist men every single day, but yes lets ignore the facts shall we?
If you live in Appalachia maybe, but have you ever looked at some statistics about this or talked to people who deal/dealt with this? Where I live it is ONLY non-whites and chicanos that do this shit to me and other girls. When white creeps come into play, it's only in places where they see/know you, like work or mutual friends or stores you frequent.
I've only been grabbed/touched a few times but those times they were black guys, Indonesian(?) Muslim guys, and someone who looked Arab and hung out in an area where Arabs tend to hang.
>>108596>I just think a woman should be able to wear a hooded wetsuit on the beach if she chooses.
They should, however,>It isn't even a political statement.
it is now. Even if you are literally only wearing it because you like how it looks or feels or whatever, wearing one is absolutely working toward the normalization of muslim culture. Too bad for all five women who wanted to wear one for legitimate reasons.
>>108599>it is now. Even if you are literally only wearing it because you like how it looks or feels or whatever, wearing one is absolutely working toward the normalization of muslim culture
I don't see how it is normalizing Muslim culture. A woman wanting to go to the beach isn't a specifically Muslim thing. And we have already seen examples of how long wetsuits have existed long before this whole drama. This is such h a weird hill to die on. Do you think these women in burkinis are recruiting for isis or some shit? They just want to go swimming.
And you know that the guys who try to swing their objections to the burkini with "b-but Muslim men will kill and rape you for wearing a bikini" dont really care about violence against women. If it was a story about ~Chads doing something similar, they wouldn't give a shit.
Anon, it's not oppressive if people choose to do it, that's them using their freedoms to live in a way they're comfortable with.
Do you think that when someone chooses to become a nun that they're being oppressed and are part of a misogynistic group of literal slaves as well? Because nun's have less freedoms than some random muslim in a wetsuit.
Are you claiming that there are no Christian families who force their daughters to behave that way?
Or that the issue in that situation is the religion, and not the abusive violent behaviour? Because that sounds like you're kind of reaching there if you're seriously going "some people are forced to act a certain way so we should force everyone to act in a different way".
File: 1472433385677.jpg (67.72 KB, 540x576, 1435695097004.jpg)
>>108608>Are you claiming that there are no Christian families who force their daughters to behave that way?
I am claiming they are teaching their daughters to use their freedom of not refusing sex to their husbands and being their property.
>>108610>any ironic post is shitposting
On a more serious note, muslim women shamed and abused for not complying to the expectations of an opressive middle-eastern culture are commonplace, even in Western Europe
Girls pressed by their families into becoming nuns are nonexistant
I don't see how your analogy holds together.
Of course abuse is the problem. Another problem is that it highly correlates with certain cultural and religious practices which helps perpetuate a situation in which women have to live in awful conditions.
Wearing a wetsuit is one of those cultural practices that contribute to the dehumanisation of women.
>>108611>I was merely pretending to be retarded!
Sure, maybe not for nuns, but being forced into certain cultural practices is extremely common in any religion. You twisted my analogy into something completely different, the whole point of it was to say if you choose to give up some freedoms, that's not oppression, that's your choice.
>Of course abuse is the problem. Another problem is that it highly correlates with certain cultural and religious practices which helps perpetuate a situation in which women have to live in awful conditions.
It's a good thing there's already laws in place that mean they can choose to leave at any point if they want to then, isn't it? The abusive behaviours are already illegal, there's nothing more to be done about it.
>Wearing a wetsuit is one of those cultural practices that contribute to the dehumanisation of women.
Come on anon, you don't actually believe this do you? What about if they were long pants instead of a miniskirt? Is that dehumanising?
Do you think that a bikini is contributing to objectification as well? Because you're using the exact same logic as some sex negative feminist, just on the other end of the spectrum.
To add, stop calling it a wetsuit, please. Those two have completely different functions.
Wetsuits have different utilitarian purposes(such as not getting sunburnt or preserving your body heat in cold water)
Burkinis purpose is occulting the body of male's property from other males.
But anon, a burkini is literally a wetsuit plus a hat. Plenty of women choose to wear a wetsuit because they're not comfortable wearing a normal bikini or other forms of swim wear, you can't just go "This is for x and x alone because I say so", as both can fill both functions.
There is literally no argument to be made for why the burkini is bad except for you not liking one of the cultures it's commonly used in.
Calling people retarded after you don't find their sarcasm funny enough is rude.
>It's a good thing there's already laws in place that mean they can choose to leave at any point if they want to then, isn't it? The abusive behaviours are already illegal, there's nothing more to be done about it.
Pity those women don't live in a social context which enables and encourages that type of behaviour.
Back when I lived next to a north-african neighbour, he used to physically abuse his wife regularly(which I had to endure since paer walls).
Guess how many times she attempted contacting the authorities?
(I'll answer this one for you, 3 out of 3 times the cops came, it was me calling them).
>>108615>Pity those women don't live in a social context which enables and encourages that type of behaviour.
If you don't choose to take advantage of the options available to you and show no real desire to do so, it's not an unfair assumption to say that they don't want their situation to change.
Sure, this isn't true in all cases, and some people are beaten into submission and live in fear, but there's really no evidence that the women going out to the beach on their own wearing a burkini are so heavily abused that they're only wearing that because they're fearful for their life if they don't.
If you're going to ban a burkini because people might wear it for modesty reasons, you'd also have to ban all concealing clothing and all wetsuits overall, otherwise you're just making it clear that your issue is with Muslims wearing it, not the reason why they do.
Sacramental bread, foie gras and chickpea are all foods.
All three fulfill the nutritional function.
All thre are consumed for different reasons.
You denying that certain cultural practices contribute to the creation of a very women-unfriendly mindset is plain stupid.
Social existence defines consciousness.
>>108617>Sacramental bread, foie gras and chickpea are all foods.
Yes, though you're choosing incredibly unfair food types. The burkini isn't a ceremonial piece of clothing.
>You denying that certain cultural practices contribute to the creation of a very women-unfriendly mindset is plain stupid.
So you think that women wearing clothing for modesty based on beliefs that they personally hold is proof of a "woman-unfriendly mindset"? It seems to me that the person trying to legislate against these women being able to choose what they'd like to wear is contributing far, far more to that, because you're now implying that the only reason those women would choose to wear that is because they were forced to by violently abusive family members, and not simply because it's in keeping with the values they personally hold.>>108618
I don't think you could have picked a worse example anon, you're now implying that all women who choose to have sex with their husbands are now being beaten into it and only do it because they live in fear.
Women who live in households where they're forced to wear concealing clothing because they're fearful of their husbands hurting them wouldn't be allowed to go to a beach and hang out with people wearing next to nothing. That seems clear from a religious point of view.
>>108619>Yes, though you're choosing incredibly unfair food types.
4u>The burkini isn't a ceremonial piece of clothing.
How do you call a piece of clothing worn for religious reasons?
You can as well argue the papal tiara is worn for aesthetical reasons alone at this point.>simply because it's in keeping with the values they personally hold
What values? of being property?
I love it when people pretend islam and middle-eastern culture are not extremely misogynistic.>I don't think you could have picked a worse example anon
I was merely referencing this post >>108587
which my as well be yours.
Anyway, I believe I made my point clear enough and don't feel any urge to reiterate it or break it down any further. You are free to disagree and wear an empowering niqab.
>>108621>How do you call a piece of clothing worn for religious reasons?
The burkini is not worn for religious reasons. It's worn for modesty reasons.
>What values? of being property?>wearing a swim suit means you believe you're someone elses property
>Anyway, I believe I made my point clear enough and don't feel any urge to reiterate it or break it down any further
You've made no point except for "I believe that Islam is oppressive towards women, and to fix this I believe we should create legislation to take away the freedoms of women".
I think these guys are forgetting that at the end of the day, it is only a bathing suit. It isn't an outfit worn for prayer or anything. So most people aren't going to see a hooded wetsuit as a religious item, because it isn't used for anything religious. It has a very specific, non-sinister purpose (going swimming).
So the average Joe isn't going to get rustled over swimware.
I don't see how you could get this upset over it anyway, it's such a complete non-issue.
I mean, sure, there are some issues that are more common in Muslim communities, but what Islamic women choose to wear when they go swimming doesn't really seem like it is one to me. As you said, it's not a religious item, it's just a wetsuit that's slightly longer than usual. Fuck, even if it was a religious item, who cares? I could go buy a nun's habit and wear it at the beach if I wanted to.
This isn't even making mountains out of molehills, it's like pointing at a perfectly flat piece of ground and calling that a mountain.
File: 1472470918192.png (947.58 KB, 1280x720, 4460e286-f6f2-4a79-9bfc-bf44b0…)
It's not that deep, dude.
Fuck all this Noise about burkinis. Practicing women wouldn't go swimming without it with their kids, they would at home, not mingling with people. How is that bad, they have fucking more freedom than before.
It's just like that polemic about foulards being sold in more mainstream cloth shop, it's not a sign of Islamization, it's a sign that this thing is losing value as a religious item, it's becoming a fashion accessory.
50 years ago in France, if you saw someone wearing a cross around their neck, it was to signify they were Catholics. Now, if you see a woman with a cross covered in strass from Claire's, you don't think "how she must be going to church very Sunday".
It's fucking improvement. Yeah, it's slow going. Yeah, in a perfect world we would be already done with religion. But so what if it's helping ?
>>108652>I don't need to explain why it's religious and not just for modesty reasons because if you disagree with me you're braindead
You're really trying way, way too hard. I support Islam because I believe in freedom of religion, and that a person should be able to do whatever the fuck they want in their personal lives as long as it doesn't stop anyone else doing what they want. It's got nothing to do with some inherent subservient nature or getting off on being oppressed whatever robot tier shit you're trying to say. If someone's taking away someone's rights in the name of religion, that act's the issue, not that religion.
And I'm Catholic, but I just believe it's not at all my place to judge and shit on others for making a different choice to me, let alone to try to take away their free will because of that.
I was going to dismiss this entirely because most women here don't think like that at all, and dislike Islam even more than the men do. But I think that's a French thing. For example I have never met an Anglo, German, Dutch, or Scandi woman who didn't support Islam and immigration.
So what you said might actually be true for Anglos, but don't make it about "universal female nature".
I agree completely. I'm not religious, but I understand how it can give people peace and guidance in their lives. I find those street preachers who stand near the bus stops downtown in my city waaaaaay more annoying than a burkini could ever be. This preacher camps where you basically have to be if you want to catch a bus downtown, and preaches, loudly, with a microphone as his kids hand out pamphlets. And I've seen this guy at all hours of the day and night, yelling about fire and brimstone.
That offends me. That shoves his religion in my face, AND exploits his kids, AND at a location where i have no choice BUT to listen. That offends me.
A woman's choice of bathing suit is not an in-your-face display of religious ideas. Her choice of clothing doesnt effect me. If she was using the bathing suit to somehow preach to me, it would be a different story.
So I'm guessing you think be able to wear hijab in the work place too?
What about niqab?
What about Muslim men who refuse to shake hands with women? It's their religious right and they're not hurting anyone.
What about Muslim men who refuse to talk to women?
What about schools where every girl wears a hijab, and if one girl doesn't want to everyone calls her a whore and harasses her constantly? What do you do, put all those little kids in jail, or tell the girl to stop being a whore and just wear the hijab?
What about women who are not allowed to leave the house by their husbands except fully covered and with male escort, and they've lived all their lives in a community where that's considered the norm and where they've been indoctrinated into it ever since they were little kids? Clearly it's their own free choice so that's all just peachy.
inb4 all these things are already happening because of our horribly sexist Christian society.
That preacher wouldn't be allowed to do that in France either.
>If she was using the bathing suit to somehow preach to me
She is, you're just too thick to see it.
I believe that as long as your workplace has no rules otherwise about headwear, yes, you should be allowed to.
>What about Muslim men who refuse to shake hands with women?>What about Muslim men who refuse to talk to women?
Both of those are the persons choice, if they don't want to talk to women or shake their hands, they don't have to. It's weird, but I'm not going to shit on them for making that decision.
>What about schools where every girl wears a hijab, and if one girl doesn't want to everyone calls her a whore and harasses her constantly?
This just reads like something you made up to prove a point, but I already addressed this. The kids who are causing issues should be punished the same as any kids who are bullying other kids. It being religious doesn't change anything, treat them the exact same as everyone else.
>What about women who are not allowed to leave the house by their husbands except fully covered and with male escort, and they've lived all their lives in a community where that's considered the norm and where they've been indoctrinated into it ever since they were little kids?
I've honestly never seen this happen, but the whole "you're indoctrinated into it" argument tends to be reliant more on "your upbringing instilled values I don't like in you, so it's brainwashing" rather than use of any actual manipulative techniques or abusive behaviours. We're all "indoctrinated" with some values based on our upbringing. If they choose to continue to live that way, they should absolutely be allowed to do that, as it's their life to do whatever they please with as long as it doesn't stop anyone else doing the same or harm them, as I said. If they're doing it because they're fearful of their husbands, that's an issue, but that isn't a purely religious issue, partners feeling trapped and controlled, like they can't make any decisions for fear of consequences is pretty uncommon in abusive relationships, and there should be places to turn for them, as there already is.
>inb4 all these things are already happening because of our horribly sexist Christian society.
Can you even read? I outright said I'm a Catholic, why would I reply with "Oh yeah well it's already the case because of those evil sexist Christians"? My entire point is that you have no right to take away someones ability to make their own choices simply because you disagree with them. You not sharing the same religious views doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to practice theirs. If they do something illegal, they should be treated the same as anyone else who did that illegal thing, but otherwise, let them do whatever.
Different anon, but I'll answer a few of these:
>can women work wearing a hijab?
I've had women with hijabs as coworkers tons of times, and it never impacted their ability to do their job. They were just normal people, who happened to wear headscarves.
Sure, why not. As long as she could perform her job, I don't care.
>Muslim men who won't shake hands with women?
I've literally never encounter this in my job, but it is their right. I'm sure it might cause some social awkwardness, but I don't judge people on their handshaking techniques so as long as the dude was nice to me I doubt I'd care.
>Muslim men who refuse to talk to women?
Again , I have no experience with this, but those men are going to have a difficult time keeping that up. That would totally make it hard to him to find a job, go to a store, or take a bus if he encounters professional women.
>kids being bullied for not wearing hijab>domestic abuse
As a society, we typicaly condem children bullying eachother for any reason. So I'd hope those kids would be punished. We also have many options to help women suffering from domestic abuse, so I would hope that she would take one of those opportunities to get away from such controlling family members.
>if they don't want to talk to women or shake their hands, they don't have to.
Amazing, so I guess just stop hiring women anywhere that has Muslims then since they won't be able to work with Muslims. Or just have them around when you have to but just ignore them completely like they already do at school boards in Muslim areas in the UK.
>The kids who are causing issues should be punished the same as any kids who are bullying other kids.
Yeah just punish everyone, that always. It sure will make the girl more popular and respected too.
Meanwhile in the real world the girl will just wear the hijab so she's not treated like trash every day of her life.
>We're all "indoctrinated" with some values based on our upbringing. If they choose to continue to live that way, they should absolutely be allowed to do that
Right, so you don't see any issue with this and you're ok with that becoming the dominant lifestyle in the West. Got it.
Just stop pretending you don't support the rule of Islamic law because any idiot can see that's exactly where your "just let them do whatever they want lol" shit is leading.
You go to a beach. Every woman there is wearing a burkini. Do you
A. Sit down in your bikini and enjoy every single person on the beach staring at you like you're holding a giant "I'M A GIGANTIC WHORE PLEASE RAPE ME" sign
B. Put on a burkini like everyone else so you don't offend Islam
C. Go home and let the Muslims own the beach
>>108675>Amazing, so I guess just stop hiring women anywhere that has Muslims then since they won't be able to work with Muslims. Or just have them around when you have to but just ignore them completely like they already do at school boards in Muslim areas in the UK.
What? How did you get that at all from what I said? Or you could just continue hiring as usual and let the Muslim refuse to talk to them if he wants? If I refuse to shop at Coles, that doesn't mean that Coles should be forced to shut down, does it?
>Yeah just punish everyone, that always. It sure will make the girl more popular and respected too.
So instead of punishing the bullies for breaking the rules, you think we should just ban any religious clothing? What about if they picked on a girl for wearing white socks? Ban all non-white socks? If she had brown hair? Force all students to dye their hair brown?
>Right, so you don't see any issue with this and you're ok with that becoming the dominant lifestyle in the West. Got it.
No, there's no issue with someone choosing to live their life in the way they deem proper. Just the same as there's nothing wrong with someone choosing to live as a nun.
If they're being abused and forced to be that way, that's an issue, but not if they simply choose to.
>Just stop pretending you don't support the rule of Islamic law because any idiot can see that's exactly where your "just let them do whatever they want lol" shit is leading.
>If you don't support a 1984 style world where everyone is forced to live by an intensely strict moral code, that means you support shariah law! No, it doesn't matter that you're a Catholic or that it makes absolutely no sense in the context of what you've been saying, but it's true because I said so!
I'd just go to the beach to be completely honest with you, and if they were being abusive towards me I'd call the police or the appropriate authority at that beach. Who gives a fuck if someone doesn't approve? They're allowed to think what they want if they keep it to themselves.
Stop creating strawmen and loaded answers to try to force people to agree with you.
Why are you still arguing with those women, see >>108655
You said so yourself, they want this to happen. All of their bullshit is just trying to rationalize that.
>Or you could just continue hiring as usual and let the Muslim refuse to talk to them if he wants?
I guess you're not aware of this but coworkers usually need to talk to each other for work.
>What about if they picked on a girl for wearing white socks? Ban all non-white socks? If she had brown hair? Force all students to dye their hair brown?
None of those things happen, and neither white socks nor hair colour are religious or new.>>108682
Yes you'd enjoy it I'm sure.>>108683
I don't know if I should hope that they're just stupid and nearsighted or that it's what you say. Either way this is sure making me appreciate living in a country where people still have a sense of values and the courage to defend them.
>>108686>I guess you're not aware of this but coworkers usually need to talk to each other for work.
So don't fucking hire someone who refuses to talk to women then, that's obvious. And I think you'll find I said "personal life", not professional one. Obviously there's consequences for your behaviour in the professional world, but that was never the topic at hand, don't move the goalposts.
>None of those things happen, and neither white socks nor hair colour are religious or new.
And neither does an entire school bullying one girl for not wearing religious headwear, don't be a hypocrite.
Also, how is Islamic religious clothing somehow a new thing?
I love how you've just gradually dropped all of your points too, it's a good way to let everyone know you've got no real argument behind Islam upsetting your feelings.
>Either way this is sure making me appreciate living in a country where people still have a sense of values and the courage to defend them.
Kek, what country anon? I'm sure complaining about how people who disagree with your religious views (not to say you're a Christian, as this attitude goes completely against the teachings of Christ and his apostles) deserve to have their freedom taken away is a core social view in your country.
>>108688>>108689>Then don't hire>So don't fucking hire
I won't. Surely that will solve the problem of businesses and administrations where Muslims (or even more commonly idiot liberals like yourselves) are in charge of hiring.
>Also, how is Islamic religious clothing somehow a new thing?
Because it literally started appearing here a few decades ago?
>And neither does an entire school bullying one girl for not wearing religious headwear, don't be a hypocrite.
Holy fucking shit get out of your little white American suburbia or whatever the fuck and have a look at what's going on in Muslim majority areas in Europe you delusional idiot.
>Kek, what country anon?
France, ie the country the whole world and this thread is calling racist and oppressive for having the balls to defend its values against Islamic totalitarianism. >>108687
lel that's a lot of responsibility, especially since I don't see the rest of the world waking up before it's way too late, if at all. And even here it's still slow and hesitant as fuck.
File: 1472476077411.jpg (169.96 KB, 900x515, roman-bikini-girls-mosaic-scie…)
The church of classical western civilisation of course
>>108691>I won't. Surely that will solve the problem of businesses and administrations where Muslims are in charge of hiring.
What sort of retarded employer would hire someone who refuses to talk to half of their potential customers? Stop creating situations that would never happen and going "LOOK, it's proof of how evil Islam is!".
Also>if you aren't a totalitarian you must be a retarded liberal
>Because it literally started appearing here a few decades ago?
Really? There was no Islamic religious clothing in your country until a few decades ago?
>Holy fucking shit get out of your little white American suburbia or whatever the fuck and have a look at what's going on in Muslim majority areas in Europe you delusional idiot.
How about instead of just typing condescending posts, you provide proof of this happening, retard. You can't just claim shit's happening then when people point out it doesn't happen go "It does you fucking retard god you're so sheltered if only you were in unnamed region where it happens then you'd know!".
>France, ie the country the whole world and this thread is calling racist and oppressive for having the balls to defend its values against Islamic totalitarianism.
You mean the country that over ruled the retarded ban on burkinis?
Also, how can you sit there and call other totalitarians while you say that the government should have control over what you are and aren't allowed to do in your personal life? Do you not see the issue there?
People are calling you out for being racist and oppressive because you're not giving and logic apart from "I hate Islam" to try to argue for why we should create laws to objectively oppress parts of the population. Acting condescending and like you're in the right doesn't change that you've objectively been doing this.
File: 1472476921883.jpg (102.65 KB, 640x776, Little Hungarian girl stealing…)
>>108696>What sort of retarded employer would hire someone who refuses to talk to half of their potential customers?
A muslim one living secludedly in a muslim ghetto area and catering to muslim customers?
That still makes no sense, there's nowhere in the west where you're going to only deal with male customers, you'd have to be a literal moron to hire someone who refuses to talk to 50% of your potential customers.
As I said, don't create retarded situations that don't really happen and use them as proof of Islam being bad, that's the definition of a strawman, you're just making up something and then attacking it to prove your point.>>108698
Australia, and people of different faiths have been here almost as long as the country has been. More once air travel got more available, but to act like they simply weren't here is just retarded.
>What sort of retarded employer would hire someone who refuses to talk to half of their potential customers?
You think the only kind of job that exists is salesman in a store? Seriously are you fucking 12? This isn't fiction btw, like I already said there are school boards in the UK where women are excluded completely since the men refuse to work with them.
>There was no Islamic religious clothing in your country until a few decades ago?
Of course not, why the fuck would there be.
>you provide proof of this happening, retard.
I already gave one specific example earlier in the thread, but literally anyone who's even remotely acquainted with life in Muslim ghettos can give you dozens.
>You mean the country that over ruled the retarded ban on burkinis?
The bans were deemed illegal by the supreme court. Following that the prime minister stated that this was first and foremost a political issue that should be solved politically, meaning instead of localised municipal decrees there will be a nation-wide law banning the burkini everywhere in France. In that he has the support of the large majority of French people and of the political class.
>what you are and aren't allowed to do in your personal life?
Public state-owned beaches aren't your personal life.
>>108700>You think the only kind of job that exists is salesman in a store?
Well what other job are you referring to? You're just making shit up as you go, and then acting like people are dumb for not knowing what you're talking about.
>like I already said there are school boards in the UK where women are excluded completely since the men refuse to work with them.
Really? can you provide a source for this?
>Of course not, why the fuck would there be.
Because Islamic people have been there for longer than a couple decades, obviously.
>I already gave one specific example earlier in the thread
Which post? And was a source provided?
Because anecdotes don't actually count for anything.
>The bans were deemed illegal by the supreme court.>meaning instead of localised municipal decrees there will be a nation-wide law banning the burkini everywhere in France
Do you know how the law works anon? If something's over turned for being a violation of fundamental liberties, they're not going to be able to implement a larger scale ban of the exact same thing. Legal precedent is massively important in the creation of any laws, and even if they implemented a larger scale ban, it would once again just be over-ruled.
Saying something's a political issue that should be solved politically just means he realises they can't do fuck all about it, so will try to solve the issue by talking instead of legislating.
>Public state-owned beaches aren't your personal life.
>what you do in your own time isn't your personal life
It objectively is. >>108701
Come on anon, surely you have something better than "Yeah well my countries older so haha you suck"? At least our police can shoot straight and don't need to rely on the military to deal with some nutcase with a gun.
I'd also like to point out that the change to the laws that would be required for anything similar to a burkini ban to be legal in a public place would violate many human rights, which the french government has signed and ratified a fair few declarations and pieces of legislation relating to already(not least of which is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). It would lead to pressure from other countries to repeal it, and alienate them completely from the rest of the UN, as well as removing any real power that the supreme court would have, essentially leaving you in a situation where whatever the government says is now completely unable to be disputed.
You're arguing that removing any real liberty or freedom in your country is good as long as you can stop Islamic women wearing modest swim wear. Do you seriously not see how retarded that is? Or how clearly impossible for this to happen that is? Are you so clouded by your own emotions you've forgotten how to actually think rationally on even a basic level?
>>108703>Do you know how the law works anon? If something's over turned for being a violation of fundamental liberties, they're not going to be able to implement a larger scale ban of the exact same thing. Legal precedent is massively important in the creation of any laws, and even if they implemented a larger scale ban, it would once again just be over-ruled.
OMG stop talking about shit you know nothing about.
These bans are decrees issued by mayors for their respective towns. One of those decrees was made based on burkinis causing "disturbance to the public peace", and that's a sufficient justification for a mayor to ban something. However the Council of State, which acts as supreme court in administrative justice, determined that there was no sufficient disturbance of the peace in that town, therefore making the ban illegal. But the issue of legality would obviously be solved by making a law. The Council of State has no authority to repeal any laws, and no, precedent isn't massively important in the creation of laws because this isn't fucking Australia but France, where the people are sovereign and the political expression of the people's will is not subject to administrative judges.
Now shut up and stop embarrassing yourself.
>>108603>I don't see how it is normalizing Muslim culture.
Because it's mostly muslims who wear them. Currently, if someone sees you wearing one, they will likely assume that you are a muslim and you are wearing it because of your religion. The more people wear muslim-approved clothing, the more people get used to it and in a very miniscule way the public opinion shifts towards accepting muslim culture. The more the general public accepts muslim culture, the less likely they are to fight them over forcing their outdated practices. That's all there is to it. I'll stress once again that the effect is really small, but it's not absolutely 0.
Also note that Chads don't have a huge tendency to do something similar, I can't say that I could think of even just one example where whites randomly attacked women wearing revealing clothing. Religious groups, possibly, but I'm not exactly a fan of Christianity or its derivatives, and even with those included I can't recall a single incident. In general this whole >but whitey does it too! argument is so terribly weak that using it just makes you look like you're at your wits end. Yeah, whitey does it too, but when the amount of terrorist acts per capita is at least a hundred times lower and crime rates are not too dissimilar, clearly the non-muslims aren't the ones that need immediate moderation. Though locally banning their stupid outfits is hardly going to solve anything.
Well, guess you can vote for sarkozy or FN, next election. I'm sure banning burkinis will stop that Grand Remplacement you're so afraid of.
Hope your a troll and haven't really drunk all that neonazi kook-aid.
>>108705>But the issue of legality would obviously be solved by making a law
Which I already explained the huge issues with here >>108704
Don't call out others for having no idea how the law works if you think that France will remove all of the major human rights treaties it's signed from it's currently existing law. The burkini ban wasn't purely lifted because of lack of evidence it caused an issue, as I said, it was also because it violated fundamental human rights, which I can prove with this quote>has dealt a serious and clearly illegal blow to fundamental liberties such as the freedom of movement, freedom of conscience and personal liberty.
Sourced from herehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/burkini-ban-french-france-court-suspends-rule-law-forbidding-swimwear-worn-muslim-women-seriously-a7211396.html
>precedent isn't massively important in the creation of laws because this isn't fucking Australia but France
Australia's court system is based off a European one you moron (Frances court system is extremely similar to that of the UK, which we are essentially identical to), and common law (ie where precedent is most important) influences literally all other parts of the law, most notably in creation of legislation, as if something has already been deemed to be illegal on several different levels, including several human rights violations, it's going to be almost impossible to create any compelling reason why you should legislate against it, let alone to somehow get the international community to accept it. And if you don't think that's important, well, I don't know what else to tell you, you're clearly either baiting or a moron.
Yes Anon, the French left-wing government and the French socialist party along with every other major political party are all neonazi, and so are the 2/3 of French people who support banning burkinis.
You're totally not the one who seems like a complete crackpot.
Dressing up as a trash bag at the beach is not a fucking human right you straw-grabbing idiot. The Council of State determined that French law currently permits wearing burkinis, but that will obviously no longer be the case once there's a law banning burkinis.
>Australia's court system is based off a European one you moron
Holy fuck. Australia and the UK have common law, France has civil law. In France parliament votes a law, and then that's the fucking law, it's not up to unelected judges to overrule the will of the people. The only body that can repeal a law is the Constitutional Council, if it determines that the law contradicts the constitution. Which it obviously wouldn't, since secularism is one of the most important French constitutional principles, and we've already passed laws banning hijabs in public settings and niqabs everywhere amidst the same sort of international whining and moaning as what you're doing now.
Yeah, what about no ? Niqabs are forbidden because they cover the whole face, just like ski masks and helmets. It's not a religious ban, it' a security ban.
You're mixing stuff up.
No, the main reason for banning the niqab as stated by the National Assembly is that it >considère que les pratiques radicales attentatoires à la dignité et à l’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes, parmi lesquelles le port d’un voile intégral, sont contraires aux valeurs de la République
(it considers that radical practices that are prejudicial to the dignity and equality between men and women, including the wearing of a full face veil, is opposed to the values of the Republic)
Are you ever going to get tired of talking about shit you don't know?
Anon, they're not wrong in saying that if you think a nation wide ban of this style will ever be implemented that you'd have to be a complete fucking nutcase.
And I've been looking, and all I can find evidence of as far as politicians who support it is front national, a right wing group, and an ex PM called Nicolas Sarkozy who's planning on running for the conservative nomination.>>108716>Dressing up as a trash bag at the beach is not a fucking human right you straw-grabbing idio
>I know more than senior judges
I just fucking provided a quote that named the human rights it violated, you can't just go "doesn't count".
>law banning burkinis.
Which will fucking never happen for the reasons outlined here >>108704
>Australia and the UK have common law, France has civil law
Which differ how, exactly?
>The only body that can repeal a law is the Constitutional Council, if it determines that the law contradicts the constitution.
You mean like violating the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, which was considered to be part of the constituion in 1971?
In partcular, it violates these articles>Article I - Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can be founded only on the common good.
Second section in particular. Banning burkinis but not other moderate clothing would violate this.
>Article II - The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, safety and resistance against oppression.
>liberty>resistance against oppression
>Article X - No one may be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.
Whoops, looks like it violates this one too, seeing as there's been no evidence provided of public order issues. I use this because your issue is clearly with Islamic women wearing it, not with swim suits overall, which provides evidence of it being their opinions you don't like, not the clothes.
>Article V - The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order.
First section, same reason as article above.
There are other declarations that also talk about things that make this law impossible, but this is the main one I'll use.
Kek, you don't even have any arguments left mate, you're now just going "God, I don't have to educate you" despite me using your very own statement, that the constitutional council can over rule laws if they violate the constitution, then providing proof that it in fact does violate the constitution.>>108727>You're very heavily pushing this whole "burkini = moderate clothing" as if it was an undisputable fact, but it is very much disputable
It's not. A burkini just means any slightly longer wetsuit with a head covering (not face). It's a slang term, not an official one, and applies to all moderate wetsuits.
>is plenty openness to ban something like burkinis if it can be proven that burkinis, like hijabs, further inequality between sexes
A law exclusively banning long wetsuits on women (I don't see anyone screaming about a man wearing scuba gear, or even just other forms of swim wear that cover his body + a hat) would create a far larger inequality than women being able to wear a piece of clothing they want to due to personal reasons that may not even relate to religion.
You've also only managed to provide a pretty shaky reason for why one of the four listed articles don't apply,
Why are you guys so desperate to believe that this law could ever pass, despite all the evidence against it?
I just greentexted a list of examples of complete retardedness from you, I'm not wasting my time any further.
>the constitutional council can over rule laws if they violate the constitution, then providing proof that it in fact does violate the constitution.
It doesn't, just like the laws banning niqab and hijab don't.
>>108731>I just greentexted a list of examples of complete retardedness from you, I'm not wasting my time any further.
You greentexted a couple of awkwardly worded sentences and condescending non-answers to my questions, as well as claiming you know more than some of the highest legal authorities in your country.
Obviously I know what civil law is, but I'd have to assume that it somehow differentiates from our civil law system for you to bring it up, because civil law isn't the same as common law.>>108732>Hijab is banned at public schools.
A public school is still private property you moron. The difference between a private and public school is about who owns it, not about if they're public property or not, neither is.
>And no, do your own homework.
All I'm seeing is a ban on face coverings overall, which is completely irrelevant, as it includes all forms of these short of helmets while on a bike or stuff for medical reasons.
Do you think that you should ban all clothing that covers most of your body? Because for the ban of the niqab to be relevant, that's what you'd have to be claiming.
It also doesn't apply when in your own property, in a car, or when praying.
So yeah, this existing says absolutely nothing to refute the articles I listed for why a ban on the burkini would be unconstitutional.
Sorry a foreigner proved you wrong about your own legal system though friend, maybe in the future don't let your emotions cloud your ability to think rationally so completely.
You're claiming you know more than French legal authorities and the French prime minister about the legal system of their own country, when you don't even know the difference between common and civil law.
I'm done replying to this idiocy entirely.
>>108734>You're claiming you know more than French legal authorities and the French prime minister about the legal system of their own country,
But anon, I'm the only one who's cited french legal authorities here, and the PM not only hasn't supported a nationwide ban as far as I can tell, but isn't actually an expert on the law, he's a politician.
>when you don't even know the difference between common and civil law.
I know what the difference is, but you bringing it up despite it seemingly being irrelevant (we have both in Aus, UK does too, as does the US and every other western legal system I know of, it's like going criminal law doesn't exist because tort law and civil law does)
>I'm done replying to this idiocy entirely.
Shockingly, calling something dumb and acting like you're right without actually explaining why or how this is the case doesn't mean you are. Nice try though.
>>108735>Shockingly, calling something dumb and acting like you're right without actually explaining why or how this is the case doesn't mean you are. Nice try though.
Dismissing any position you disagree with as a wrong one doesn't make you right either.
It has been both justified why those clothes are religious and how they have a negative impact on social interactions which you dismiss along the lines of>lol it's just a swimsuit(which it is not, since it is a religious, cultural and political statement)>you act like those retarded sex positive sjws>Islam and arab traditions are unopressive just let them not speak to women and discriminate them lmao that's what a Roman Catholic like me would do
>>108737>Dismissing any position you disagree with as a wrong one doesn't make you right either.
When the position boils down to "I don't like Islam", yes, it does.
>It has been both justified why those clothes are religious and how they have a negative impact on social interactions
You yourself admitted there was no evidence of it causing any issues, don't backflop anon.
>lol it's just a swimsuit(which it is not, since it is a religious, cultural and political statement)
As was said, if you honestly think a swimsuit is designed in order to convert you to Islam, please seek help.
>you act like those retarded sex positive sjws
When I directly explained the logic as to why I said that, simply quoting the argument doesn't change that you are.
>Islam and arab traditions are unopressive just let them not speak to women and discriminate them lmao that's what a Roman Catholic like me would do
I simply said that as long as it doesn't hurt someone else or stop them making their own decisions, we have the right to do whatever we want. If that includes not talking to women (though lets be honest, that doesn't really exist in any noteworthy numbers), then so be it, you don't have to talk to them. It'll make your life tough, but you don't have to if you choose not to.
But you took that to mean I think we should stop hiring women to cater for someone who doesn't want to talk to them, somehow, which is ridiculous.
I've noticed you also managed to drop all your points bar one, and completely ignore the fact that I have quotes from judges and your constitution to support what I'm saying, while you've provided absolutely nothing. Maybe you should learn to admit when you're wrong about something.
>>108751>You yourself admitted there was no evidence of it causing any issues
I never did.>As was said, if you honestly think a swimsuit is designed in order to convert you to Islam, please seek help
Nice strawman.>When I directly explained the logic as to why I said that
You never did, and the logic behind it you implied was a pretty weak analogy.>But you took that to mean I think we should stop hiring women to cater for someone who doesn't want to talk to them, somehow, which is ridiculous
I never posted anything similar.>I've noticed you also managed to drop all your points bar one
Please, do provide evidence.>while you've provided absolutely nothing
You ignored that poster's quote about the factor of male-female inequality contributing to banning the empowering non-religious dress.>Maybe you should learn to admit when you're wrong about something
I don't think I am. Maybe you should learn to stop throwing useless strawmen and assumptions around?
What Jewish women were doesn't cover their entire head. Its more like a dress for swimming, so a burkini is one step further.
It is ins't worn out of religions modesty or piety, but as a provocation to European host societies. It is again openly displaying and promoting Islamic viewpoints and thus discrimination against women. The Jewish variant does not carry that message.
>>108780>I never did.
Whoops >>108705>However the Council of State, which acts as supreme court in administrative justice, determined that there was no sufficient disturbance of the peace
>It is again openly displaying and promoting Islamic viewpoints>promoting
>I never posted anything similar
Whoops >>108675>so I guess just stop hiring women anywhere that has Muslims then since they won't be able to work with Muslims
>Please, do provide evidence.
This thread? You raised all of these >>108665
and dropped all of them.
>You ignored that poster's quote about the factor of male-female inequality contributing to banning the empowering non-religious dress
No I didn't? I addressed it here >>108728
Please at least read the thread before you claim I didn't do things.
>Maybe you should learn to stop throwing useless strawmen and assumptions around?
How exactly are quotes from your constitution with an explanation, as well as quotes from high ranking judges supporting what I'm saying strawmen anon?
Also, I really have to point out the irony in you using a claim that I'm intellectually dishonest to try to prove me wrong, when you've just flat out lied about what you did or didn't say, as well as trying to just name fallacies, which in itself is intellectually dishonest. Guarantee you'll just go "Oh no, those posts you quoted weren't me, so I can't be held responsible :^)" too.
>>108813>Oh no, those posts you quoted weren't me, so I can't be held responsible
So you admit to having mistaken me for another poster?
I'm surprised it took you so long to tell us apart.
So far you've quoted 0 posts written by me.
Anyway, I've already replied twice after I told I had no intention to continue.
I understand we have diametrally different opinions on the nature, function and cultural impact of these kinds of clothing.
I don't feel like repeating myself over and over again.
>>108823>So you admit to having mistaken me for another poster
No, I'm pointing that out because not only is it impossible to say who's who (I can claim I'm actually both of us having an argument with myself, no-one else could prove it right or wrong), but you made no attempt to let anyone know you were a different poster, there's no reason for me to care or believe you.
There's a reason people type "Different anon here" when they want to pick up someone elses argument.
And are you sure you replied twice? It could have been someone else, I wouldn't want to mix that up.
>nature, function and cultural impact of these kinds of clothing.
The nature? It's a piece of fabric anon. The function is to cover your skin and dry out pretty easily, and the only cultural impact seems to be causing some random French people to sperg out over nothing, get BTFO by their own courts and turn any legitimate issues they're having into a complete joke.
I know you like to pretend it's a joke or not worth thinking about, but you're acting exactly like those tumblr feminists. All of the above as well as reading way, way too far into mundane shit and ignoring any evidence or arguments against you while just implying that the person presenting them is part of some evil group that's just trying to manipulate and suppress you despite there being no evidence of it.
Have fun being a retard though, be careful you don't wear a shirt with sleeves that are too long though, someone might figure out your master plan to convert them to Mormonism.
This is honestly gotten to the point where I can't tell if /pol/anon is trolling or not. Like, wetsuits have existed for a longass time…is it the hood that is subliminally effecting him?
I think we would give him less of a hard time if he just said "I don't like the burkini because I don't want to see that Muslim shit". He is trying to run around his actual objection to a style of bathing suit.
If he sees me running to the store in sweatpants with the hood of my hoodie up, does he assume I'm trying to subliminally effect him? I bought a Vogue magazine yesterday, and apparently capes are back in style (and look fab), is that creeping sharia? It is a draping fabric that covers a lot of skin. Is this new fashion trend a Muslim plot, too?
My brother wears sports jerseys all the time! Is my brother subliminally making me a fan of his favorite teams?
>>108830>I think we would give him less of a hard time if he just said "I don't like the burkini because I don't want to see that Muslim shit"
I agree completely. Still would be irrational, but he doesn't have to like it, there's nothing objective about it, he simply doesn't like it. But dressing it up as some huge threat to his culture and way of life is just silly, let alone saying that it's such a huge threat that the government's going to legislate against it or that those politicians saying that is anything more than just a campaign promise that they know can't be upheld. It's silly really.
>My brother wears sports jerseys all the time! Is my brother subliminally making me a fan of his favorite teams?
No, but if it goes further down than his waist he could be trying to convert you to scientology, I'd be cautious around him.
It is silly! And it isn't even tied to issues of security. There is no correlation between choosing a certain bathing suit, and being a religious fanatic. There has been no news about women using burkinis for any dastardly purpose. Even those pictures of the police making that woman remove her clothes on the French beach isn't "threatening". She was wearing beach wear on the beach. When I saw the news story with those pictures I was honestly like "am I missing something here?"
Like, remember when Columbine happened, and the news was up-in-arms about angsty teens wearing trench coats? In a way that makes "sense" to me. The shooters used the coats to sort of conceal their weapons, and there were all those rumors about "the trenchcoat mafia". At least that concern trolling followed a straight line: the killers were known for their trenchcoats - possibly used them as part of a "group" - they wore the trenchcoats on he day of the shooting - what's up with those trenchcoats?
But this burkini thing doesn't have the same elements. There is no straight line for me to follow. I honestly don't get the objection.
France has a very different view of religion than most countries, they are much more devoted to secularism.
Religion to the French is not something you profess in front of others, it's something you keep to yourself and done in the closed doors in your home. For example, it is illegal to wear a cross in public schools of government buildings in France.
France had this mentality towards Christianity for a while now and it has extended toward Islam. Muslims are being given special privileges in the eyes of the French to use the burkini when that display of religion in a public place is considered anti french to people there.
So in many ways it's a fuck you to the people of France by the muslim community that they dont want to assimilate to French values. Of course maybe it is not meant that way, but this is how the French see it. I dont think it's related to safety but cultural values and assimilation that other countries wouldnt understand
>>108918>in public schools of government buildings
*in public schools or publicly funded buildings
This. France is not secular, it's anti-religion. Since the revolution, the government has always tried to reduce the power of the religion. Now christians are kinda afraid to say they are religious, so it's time to tame muslim people. That's how I see it.
And also what did they vote when everyone was talking about the burkini…
>>108832>But this burkini thing doesn't have the same elements. There is no straight line for me to follow. I honestly don't get the objection.
I think another part that makes it such a bizarre thing to get angry about is that nuns have been doing the same thing for years. Maybe not in a burkini, but in a full habit, and no-one said anything about it.
Sure a couple people have said "Oh no we meant them too" after it's been brought up, but the original outrage was exclusively Islamic women. Doesn't that show that it's just absolutely about wanting to make muslims not welcome instead of some religious message?
I don't get it at all.
Would that not make the nuns wearing their habits more likely to convert people to their religious?
What's the issue with muslims wearing it if nuns are okay?
>The comparison is retarded arab victim mongering and always has been.
>discriminate against people based on their religion>Act like everyone who points out that's victimisation is retarded
Nice meme, I appreciate it.
Honestly speaking, I don't care - Modern France is a mess of internal contradictions like most of Western Europe.
I just dislike Islam and a good portion of the Muslims who have reduced previously one of the most beautiful countries in Europe into a festering shithole with third-world tier cities like outer Paris and Marseilles.
>>108994>I just dislike Islam and a good portion of the Muslims who have reduced previously one of the most beautiful countries in Europe into a festering shithole with third-world tier cities like outer Paris and Marseilles.
You see, I disagree with this, but when you're just outright saying "I don't like Islam", there's nothing to argue. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.
It's when people try to mask what's blatantly just them not liking muslims in some objective political message.>>108995
I mean, there's definitely economic factors there too. Christians in Africa don't exactly have the best reputation either, and places like Dubai are international tourism hotspots. It's not as simple as going "They did bad things so they're bad people", I think there's a lot more complexity to be added.
That being said, there's simply too much extremism going on in certain areas for it to be safe to allow immigration as we are today, I'm not pro-immigration or anything. Asylum seekers I can't speak for, I don't really know how strict the procedures are for them to be granted it.
>>108997>You see, I disagree with this
What's to disagree with? 60% of their jails are Maghrebis. The assertion that they've reduced the quality of life in France isn't really contestable.
>Christians in Africa don't exactly have the best reputation either
I'm not a fan of Christianity for other reasons.
Dubai is what it is because of western and asian expats.
>not as simple as
Well no. It's not as simple as that. But that's how the history of Europe's interaction with the rest of the world from the 15th century onwards is presented, so why can't we be binary about Arab crimes too?
>how strict the procedures
It's impossible to be "strict". Obama talked about this serious vetting process but that only works with people there's a paper trail for, i.e. prominent extremist preachers and people like that. For random criminals in Syria there's nothing, whatever documentation did exist is long since destroyed and the US government has no real official comms channel with the Syrian one anymore anyway.
>>108999>The assertion that they've reduced the quality of life in France isn't really contestable.
I disagree that it's Muslims at fault, and I believe instead that it's the individuals from certain regions. I believe that people from those regions (Syria and the like) would be more likely to have issues in western countries regardless of their religion, and that there are many people who convert to the religion who live here originally who have no issues at all.
>Dubai is what it is because of western and asian expats.
Source? I don't think it's fair to just handwave an entire region away like that without pretty good evidence that it was all westerners.
>But that's how the history of Europe's interaction with the rest of the world from the 15th century onwards is presented, so why can't we be binary about Arab crimes too?
Because two wrongs don't make a right?
>It's impossible to be "strict". Obama talked about this serious vetting process but that only works with people there's a paper trail for, i.e. prominent extremist preachers and people like that.
You can just make it so that if they have absolutely no proof of their whereabouts for the last year or two that they can't be granted it, or that if there's any suspicion of them being in contact with extremists they can't get it. You can also make it so that they're sent to the nearest safe reason instead of places like Europe or the US.
Isn't stuff like seeking asylum typically handled by international organisations like the UN though? I'm sure the US is in contact with them just fine.
>>109004>and I believe instead that it's the individuals from certain regions
The majority of Muslim immigrants to France are from the Maghreb, i.e. North Africans. They aren't Near Easterners (Syrians). The majority of people coming to Europe claiming asylum, even in 2014, were also not Syrians. Not even nominally.
Expats make up 80% of the workforce in Dubai.
That's not what I said. And Dubai isn't a region, it's a city.
>Because two wrongs don't make a right?
Not the point.
>so that if they have absolutely no proof of their whereabouts for the last year or two
1. That excludes probably 95% of them.
2. That's not a guarantee they're not radical.
>Isn't stuff like seeking asylum typically handled by international organisations like the UN though? I'm sure the US is in contact with them just fine.
Do you think the UN has files on every random transient from the MENA region?
Not to mention the idea of "if I see your burkini, that means you are trying to convert me".
That just doesn't hold water for me. If the people of France were that susceptible to "subliminal influences" then shouldn't they be focusing on the damages that the advertising industry could do to the people? Where's the outrage over commercials or billboard ads? Surely, direct advertisements would be more damaging to the minds of France, since they are directly trying to get you to purchase a product.
>>109010>The majority of Muslim immigrants to France are from the Maghreb, i.e. North Africans.
Okay? I said certain regions, with syria as an example.
>Expats make up 80% of the workforce in Dubai.
>dubai's great because of its workforce
I'm pretty sure the only reason it can even exist is the huge amounts of wealthy people in it, a lot of which are Muslim or Arabs.
>that's not what I said. And Dubai isn't a region, it's a city.
I realise that, but the entire region around dubai, the UAE has a high standard of living.
>1. That excludes probably 95% of them.
And? It would encourage people to actually provide papers, and ensure that the ones getting through are legitimate. Obviously it's not 100% accurate, but it would at least stop those directly related to terrorist groups getting in.
>Do you think the UN has files on every random transient from the MENA region?
Seeing as you have to be granted asylum, I'd say that it's pretty likely that they do, yes.
>>109016>Okay? I said certain regions, with syria as an example.
Did you miss my assertion? I'm saying that the emigration of large numbers of North Africans to France from the 1970s onwards has degraded the quality of life.
>dubai's great because of its workforce
Um. Those are the people who produce all the wealth honey. You know, those white collar professionals working for professional services firms like KPMG, banks like JP Morgan, engineering firms, software firms etc.
>I'm pretty sure the only reason it can even exist is the huge amounts of wealthy people in it
No, the reason it exists is because it attracted large amounts of foreign investment with amenable tax policies.
>Seeing as you have to be granted asylum, I'd say that it's pretty likely that they do, yes.
I'm not sure how old you are, but you sound underage b&. The UN doesn't keep records on individuals that are passed on to national governments.
There is no way of proving whether or not 99% of the people who have entered Europe are radical Muslims or even ex-cons because there's no paper trail on any of them. Simple as that.
>>109017>Did you miss my assertion? I'm saying that the emigration of large numbers of North Africans to France from the 1970s onwards has degraded the quality of life.
Which you provided no source for, and blamed on Muslims originally.
>Those are the people who produce all the wealth honey.
Yet they aren't the reason the city exists. There was simply no way the city could exist full stop if it wasn't for highly wealthy individuals investing in it. Sure, the workers actually do the day to day jobs, but if all the rich people fucked off, the city would die.
>No, the reason it exists is because it attracted large amounts of foreign investment with amenable tax policies.
Source? And by foreign, do you mean people such as the arab oil sheikh types, or are you saying that it's western CEO's responsible?
>I'm not sure how old you are, but you sound underage b&
19, but no u. Surely you could come up with a better point than "You're a kid so you're wrong because I say so".
>The UN doesn't keep records on individuals that are passed on to national governments.
How do you think those people get granted asylum in the first place anon? They just turn up, get put on a plane and forgotten? The UN is responsible for giving them the status of asylum seeker in the first place.
I'm not talking about illegal immigrants, I'm talking about people actually granted asylum.
Illegal immigrants are harder to handle, and need to be dealt with on a state to state basis.
>>109020>Which you provided no source for, and blamed on Muslims originally.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11352268/What-is-going-wrong-in-Frances-prisons.html
My mistake, it is as high as 70%.
>Yet they aren't the reason the city exists.
The reason any city has ever existed is because a surplus of food allows for increased division of labor/specialization, as is the case with white collar professionals like engineers and bankers.
>There was simply no way the city could exist full stop if it wasn't for highly wealthy individuals investing in it.
I've already said that the reason Dubai exploded in the early 00s is because amenable tax policies and the Jebel Ali Free Zone's complete lack of any capital controls encouraged firms to invest and move regional bases there.
>And by foreign, do you mean people such as the arab oil sheikh types, or are you saying that it's western CEO's responsible?
Western and East Asian firms.
The same ones the Arab Oil Sheiks themselves invest in, since they have no domestic productivity of their own beyond sitting on top of a lot of HQ crude.
>How do you think those people get granted asylum in the first place anon?
They arrive in a western country and lodge an asylum claim which then goes through the country's interior ministry and its relevant border agency. They are interviewed and if refused they can lodge an appeal, similar to a tribunal hearing.
I'm not sure what gave you the idea the UNHCR has authority over sovereign nations.
>Illegal immigrants are harder to handle, and need to be dealt with on a state to state basis.
They need to be deported. Amnesty incentivizes illegal immigration as a matter of course.
>>109021>My mistake, it is as high as 70%.
That doesn't actually support what you said anon. It says the races in prison are different, not that the country is worse now. Show me evidence that the overall quality of living has gone down.
>The reason any city has ever existed is because a surplus of food allows for increased division of labor/specialization
I'm not talking about why the city originally existed anon, I'm talking about why it flourished into the city it is today, which is heavily, heavily a result of the oil trade.
>I've already said that the reason Dubai exploded in the early 00s
But anon, Dubai was a huge trade center long before the 00s.
>Western and East Asian firms.
>They arrive in a western country and lodge an asylum claim which then goes through the country's interior ministry and its relevant border agency. They are interviewed and if refused they can lodge an appeal, similar to a tribunal hearing.
Yeah, you're right actually, apologies. I was thinking of organised evacuations in times of war.
But still, my point stands that we could easily make it so that you have to apply for asylum in the country you're trying to leave at the appropriate either embassy or UN facility.
>They need to be deported
That's already the case, but it doesn't help the issue at all. Catching them is the hard part, not handling them once you have.
File: 1472821568718.jpg (67.67 KB, 638x479, the-evolution-of-dubai-8-638.j…)
>>109022>not that the country is worse now
The point is that the wider community to which that 70% belong simply didn't have a demographically significant presence in France until immigration laws were liberalized in the 1970s. In other words, a group that commits a grossly disproportionate amount of crime in the country were not as numerous before that period.
>Show me evidence that the overall quality of living has gone down.
A minority of at most 10% is responsible for 70% of all criminality. A minority that didn't exist as anything more than 1% of the population before the 1970s.
I'm aware that the aim of people like you is to blacken the past and hope and pray that the era when cities weren't unlivable shitholes passes beyond living memory, so you can pretend "it was always like this", but there are real and verifiable metrics we can use to conclude that 1) Certain racial groups commit far more crime in virtually all countries that gather data by race and 2) These same places were significantly safer before the 1970s.
>I'm talking about why it flourished into the city it is today
This has already been explained. FDI owing to amenable economic conditions.
>huge trade center before the 00s.
No it wasn't. Pic related.
>which is heavily, heavily a result of the oil trade.
No it isn't:http://www.gluckman.com/DubaiBiz.html
Dubai's wealth has very little to do with oil. This is one of the things that contrasts it with neighboring gulf states.
Who do you think that 80% expat workforce works for? Arab firms? Asides from Aramco and other state-owned oil firms, Arabs as a group don't have a significant domestic export economy of any kind. Do you think there is an Arab equivalent to KPMG? Or Deloitte? Or Goldman?
Take stock of your argument for a moment child. You're suggesting that Dubai and the UAE are prosperous in spite of expats. You're suggesting these place were "huge international trading centers" in the 1980s.
>But still, my point stands that we could easily make it so that you have to apply for asylum in the country you're trying to leave at the appropriate either embassy or UN facility. >UN facility>Literally believes the UN is some sort of giant world government with immigration offices everywhere
You're even more stupid than I gave you credit for.
>Catching them is the hard part
No it isn't. There are neighborhoods in sanctuary cities known to the cops where virtually everyone residing there is illegal. They can't go in because they'd get fucked by human rights lawyers and the state itself if they did. What makes it hard is the concept of due process and the weight of local state law arrayed against federal authorities who do carry out these sorts of operations.
Again if you are "baffled"or you think that the burkini ban was "bizarre"and "hypocritical" here is some context for you to understand the French mentality.
It has to do with cultural integration and attitude toward religion as a whole not just islam.Islam is a special case now since 7 percent of the French population is muslim but unlike French Christians many french muslims see themselves as muslim first and french second.
The use of the burkini only infuriates the French people and reinforces the idea that the muslim community in France wants nothing to do with the French values of secularism and their attitudes toward religion.
I dont think people here are picking up on the French perspective on this and just keep on repeating the media perspective that it must be hypocritical since nuns are allowed when nuns and Catholicism have been part of French culture for a very long time and have largely been subdued by it and do not pose a threat to the French values of secularism or other parts of their culture. We are viewing it from a very American perspective which does not fit here at all.
>>109028>It has to do with cultural integration and attitude toward religion as a whole not just islam.Islam is a special case now since 7 percent of the French population is muslim but unlike French Christians many french muslims see themselves as muslim first and french second.
The problem here is that you don't understand this is normal for Muslims, well, things segment into ethnic hierarchies within Islamic state and have done historically, but as emigrants they tend to adopt the "Ummah before everything else" mentality as a matter of course. Because that's what the Quran and Sunnah say you should do.
We're never going to make any progress on discourse about Islam if we just constantly repeat the tired old lie that it is a religion of peace.
Read the Quran, read as much of the Hadith literature as you can. Until then, none of these white liberal two-bit apologists for Islam have any authority to speak about what is or what is not orthodox Islamic belief.
>>109028>The use of the burkini only infuriates the French people and reinforces the idea that the muslim community in France wants nothing to do with the French values of secularism and their attitudes toward religion
See, I think that is just crazy. I think people should be able to partake in religion if they wish, and that seeing someone wearing vaguely religious paraphernalia has nothing to do with me. I am an athiest, but I don't get angry if someone in know wears a crucifix.
It seems to be more about conformity than religion. If the person in the burkini was preaching on the beach, then I would agree with what you are saying. But if they are just swimming or enjoying a picnic or whatever, then that is "beach appropriate" behavior that I would not criticize. For me, the behavior is key.
And I would feel the same way in any venue. If someone is wearing a necklace with a star of David in a restaurant, but they are just enjoying a meal with their friends, then why should I care? They are behaving appropriately for the venue.
I don't personally know anyone from France, but I'm sure lots of people pray daily.
Is daily prayer a bad thing? What's the implication?
I do. The NT's obsession with forgiveness and praying for those who persecute you and all that sermon on the mount jazz is the reason self-flagellating white liberalism exists in the first place. It's suicidal and insane, and Nietzsche called it out over a century ago.
Outside of that, the key distinction is that Islam is a crystallized constitution on how to live one's own life, on statecraft, on the formation of courts, the writing of laws, the enforcement of laws, the handling of trade disputes and so on. You simply do not understand Islam until you have read the Quran and the Hadith, and fully comprehended and internalized what the Sunnah means. Have you read even a single Surah? If you answer nothing else of my post, answer that.
The problem with the sort of false equivalence that you types engage in is that it retards further discourse. It's an attempt to stop serious discussion about Islam in its tracks by basically projecting the history of Christianity onto Islam and believing, or rather, hoping, that Islam undergoes a "reformation" at some indeterminate point in the future.
God I hate historical materialism.
>>109038>Have you read even a single Surah? If you answer nothing else of my post, answer that.
I have read parts of the Quran during high school and university. As a filthy Canadian, a "world religions" class was offered in high school, which I took. It examined Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, through examining their religious texts and histories.
I also took two religious electives in university: one on Abrahamic religions, and one on religions in the east. Again, this involved a lot of study of religious text, icons, and history.
I also went to a Catholic elementary and high school. So I can say with experience that the Bible also examines laws and suggests behaviors for those who practice. My dad's side of the family is specifically Roman Catholic, which is known for its slightly more strict interpretation of the bible, and a literal belief in the blood of Christ.
But even the Roman Catholic church never claimed jurisdiction over all worldly matters. Which is why the concept of Ecclesiastical Law was separate from say, secular Roman Law and Germanic Common Law.
What do you remember of the Surah you read? A good portion of them are useless without the relevant hadith material since they make no sense otherwise.
Are you aware that religious history, even Abrahamic religions, are not all interchangeable and you can't project the history of one (i.e. Christianity) onto another and assume that Muslims are just good little white liberals at heart who want LGBT "rights" and feminism?
Remember the last time liberals believed that, when the Arab Spring was unfolding and the idiots at the NYT and Guardian believed it was about "anti-corruption protests" and "women's rights"?
Different groups are different, and tend towards different cultures/directions. Which is why China as it develops is actually becoming less liberal in some respects for example. Similarly, assuming that Islam is basically just Christianity in a different guise is asinine.
The point is that the wider community to which that 70% belong simply didn't have a demographically significant presence in France until immigration laws were liberalized in the 1970s. In other words, a group that commits a grossly disproportionate amount of crime in the country were not as numerous before that period.
I can see what you're saying, but it's not even a commentary on much of anything. How many of the immigrants coming here are in prison? Is it just that there's not many people in prison in france? Even for that particular aspect you need more info.
>I'm aware that the aim of people like you is to blacken the past
Wow yeah you caught me, that's exactly what I've been doing. Why not just call me an SJW while you're at it anon?
>No it wasn't. Pic related.
Wow, I didn't realise that the 1990's were in sepia? That must have truly been a strange time.
And come off it, there's pictures of it from 1960 where it's much, much more bustling than that, and a picture of what's clearly just the outskirts of the city or a new development doesn't prove anything.
>Dubai's wealth has very little to do with oil.
You realise the article you provided was talking about someone who got their money from oil, right?
>In his accruing oil wealth, the Sheikh saw salvation. While other Gulf leaders invested in mansions and munitions, Maktoum's black gold bought infrastructure, offices and modern communications. Many observers thought old Maktoum was suffering from sun stroke, when, in the middle of Dubai's flat desert, he erected the tallest building in the Middle East. Now, Sheikh Maktoum's World Trade Center is no longer surrounded by sand, but by bustling conference halls and hotels.
Dubai is mainly a trade city, but to deny that oil isn't vital to it's existence, or thriving economy is just flat out retarded.
>You're suggesting these place were "huge international trading centers" in the 1980s.
Because they were? This is just straight from the wikipedia page, with a source provided on the page for dubai
>During the 1970s, Dubai continued to grow from revenues generated from oil and trade, even as the city saw an influx of immigrants fleeing the Lebanese civil war. Border disputes between the emirates continued even after the formation of the UAE; it was only in 1979 that a formal compromise was reached that ended disagreements. The Jebel Ali port was established in 1979. JAFZA (Jebel Ali Free Zone) was built around the port in 1985 to provide foreign companies unrestricted import of labor and export capital. Dubai airport and the aviation industry also continued to grow.
And that's in the 70's. And increases in the price of oil after the gulf war also helped it focus on trade and tourism.
>You're even more stupid than I gave you credit for.
Ironic you're calling me stupid despite your complete lack of reading comprehension. Do you see the words "could"? That implies change would be necessary, such as purchasing property in major cities, or simply making it so that embassies functioned in this way, despite them being owned by the country they represent.
>There are neighborhoods in sanctuary cities known to the cops where virtually everyone residing there is illegal.
Such as? You're just giving vague information with no real examples of where this is, why the police can't go in and handle them despite vague assertations that it has something to do with due process and human rights lawyers. That's not helpful at all, and it's not an argument.
But this is just completely off topic /pol/ shit, we're not even talking about Islam anymore, we're arguing about Dubai, so I'm going to drop this. You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. Feel free to type up another wall of text if you like though.
You're right about the wine of communion, transubstantiation is a major part of Catholicism, but the part about personal interpretation isn't correct. We're absolutely meant to find our own truth in the Bible, just not where it contradicts the teachings of the Church, because otherwise you can just make it be anything, and aren't really a Catholic anymore.
There's still plenty of parts open to interpretation that don't have official positions on them though, and there's heaps of theologians who debate this stuff to try to get new viewpoints on them within the Church.
It looks nuts to outsiders, but the more you read into it the more sense it makes, even if you don't believe in parts.
If anything I think protestants are worse with the whole sola scriptura thing, which is literally saying that we should only go off what's in the bible and that the Catholics are all wrong, despite this being contradicted by the bible itself.
None of those crazy fundamentalist or evangelical types are Catholic, to put it that way.
>>109043>I can see what you're saying, but it's not even a commentary on much of anything. How many of the immigrants coming here are in prison? Is it just that there's not many people in prison in france? Even for that particular aspect you need more info.
No. The only information you need is whether or not their numbers are disproportionate relative to those of the native French, since we're comparing whether or not they've had a negative impact on the country as a group. Not the scale of that impact.
>Wow, I didn't realise that the 1990's were in sepia? That must have truly been a strange time.
>there's pictures of it from 1960 where it's much, much more bustling than that
Post them. If you seriously believe fucking Dubai was a bustling major trade metropolis in 1960 then you're living in an alternate history universe.
>You realise the article you provided was talking about someone who got their money from oil, right?
That was decades ago. You stated:
>oil isn't vital to it's existence>responsible for its thriving economy
Simple untrue. It was responsible for some of the earlier development, but it's relatively unimportant by comparison now:
>Although Dubai's economy was initially built on revenues from the oil industry, revenue from petroleum and natural gas currently account for less than 20% of the emirate's gross domestic product
>Because they were? This is just straight from the wikipedia page, with a source provided on the page for dubai
Absolutely nothing in the quote you provided suggests Dubai was a huge international trading center in the 1970s. Consider what a huge international trading center: Hong Kong, Shanghai, Tokyo, London, New York etc actually is, then compare it to 1970s Dubai.
You're stubbornness is childish kid, it doesn't make you look stronger.
>Ironic you're calling me stupid despite your complete lack of reading comprehension. Do you see the words "could"? That implies change would be necessary, such as purchasing property in major cities, or simply making it so that embassies functioned in this way, despite them being owned by the country they represent.
And where would they get the money to fund orders of magnitude scale increases in purchasing, development, hiring and training of an entirely new bureaucracy etc? They can't levy taxes, they're not a state.
How exactly would you suggest the UN gain access to the classified records of states like the KSA, or Oman, or Lebanon? These states aren't just going to voluntarily hand over such data to a goddamn inter-governmental institution they have no loyalty to.
Sanctuary cities are sanctuary cities precisely because state-level governments have given de facto amnesty to the people living there. In other words, local law enforcement aren't allowed to go in and hand those people over to Federal authorities, let alone deal with them themselves.
>wahh /pol/! /pol/! /pol/! save me from the meanies!
I didn't know /pol/ had issued a press release on the economic history of the UAE. Have they clarified their official position on this pressing matter already? >>109044>Dude, the roman catholic church absolutely thinks it can apply belief to worldly matters.
God DAMN you are so dishonest it actually makes me believe you're doing this on purpose. Note the operative word "all". The RCC never, not once, believed that it possessed authority over every wordly matter in the same way the Shariah does. Just those which intersected with ecclesiastical law. The remit of ecclesiastical law is limited by design, even the sixth century church acknowledged this. To even suggest a state should legislate in of itself without regards to the Shariah through deliberation is haram at best and shirk at worst in Islam.
>>109046>We're absolutely meant to find our own truth in the Bible, just not where it contradicts the teachings of the Church, because otherwise you can just make it be anything, and aren't really a Catholic anymore.
I don't practice anymore, but I remember learning about the literally interpretation of the bible all my life. Any further questions were answered by statements from the Pope, who provided the "final say" on the specifics.
I honestly remember my religion teacher in grade 9 telling us that the children of divorced parents were bastards in the eyes of God, because their parents broke the sacrament of marriage, so their children were no longer seen as legitimate.
>>109049>I honestly remember my religion teacher in grade 9 telling us that the children of divorced parents were bastards in the eyes of God, because their parents broke the sacrament of marriage, so their children were no longer seen as legitimate.
Religion doesn't exist to accommodate each and every lapse in judgment and behavior.
A huge part of the problem in modern society is too little judgment, not too much. Shame culture works - just look at the far east.
>>109051>shame culture works
I suppose, but it comes at the cost of alienating believers, and turning them away from the church (which is what happened with me).
>look at the east
Where in the east, and what am I looking for?
Alienating them is irrelevant. I'm interested in results: less sexually risky behavior, less single-parent families and so on. If religion can provide this, then it's a means to an end for me.
>Where in the east, and what am I looking for?
Look at the way Japan, China and Korea stigmatize certain kinds of behavior. It's ingroup regulation of dysfunctional behaviors. Stupid people are regarded as retarded and shunned at school, not thought of as cool for eschewing the rules. Kids who perform poorly on tests are shamed through public release of test results and consequently encouraged to work harder next time.
>>109049>I don't practice anymore, but I remember learning about the literally interpretation of the bible all my life. Any further questions were answered by statements from the Pope, who provided the "final say" on the specifics.
Well that's true, but some parts are meant to be taken metaphorically, it's not all literal.
>I honestly remember my religion teacher in grade 9 telling us that the children of divorced parents were bastards in the eyes of God, because their parents broke the sacrament of marriage, so their children were no longer seen as legitimate.
Your teacher was a retard. God doesn't give a shit about how you were born, the sins of the father aren't the sins of the son in Catholicism. And even your parents, civil divorce has nothing to do with a biblical one. It would be an issue if they remarried, because that can't happen in the eyes of God, but civil divorce isn't a sin.
And even though remarrying is a sin, no sin is unforgivable in the eyes of God.
Please don't listen to >>109051
with their shit about how shame culture is good, it is not Christian, and goes directly against what the Bible says about judging others. People like this are not an accurate image of what Christianity is.
>>109054>Please don't listen to >>109051 with their shit about how shame culture is good, it is not Christian, and goes directly against what the Bible says about judging others. People like this are not an accurate image of what Christianity is.
Funny how your "faith" is basically just you getting rid of all the "nasty" bits that hurt fee-fees because they require taking a stern, paternalistic approach with some people. You're probably the sort of person who believes that "love conquers everything" and that the best parenting technique is to cuddle your child and never tell him off even if he's screaming at 80 decibels in public.
Fuck liberalism and its mediocrity.
>>109055>Funny how your "faith" is basically just you getting rid of all the "nasty" bits that hurt fee-fees because they require taking a stern, paternalistic approach with some people.
I'm just basing it off what's in the Bible anon.
>You're probably the sort of person who believes that "love conquers everything" and that the best parenting technique is to cuddle your child and never tell him off even if he's screaming at 80 decibels in public.
Can you tone down the strawmen? It doesn't contribute anything except letting everyone know you're taking this way, way too seriously and aren't interested in any real discussion.>>109056
It is not our place to judge others for sinning. They've been given the gift of free will so they can make their own decisions, and we'd be hypocritical to go around acting like we're better than them, when we're all sinners ourselves.
Only God can judge.
And before you say, no, I don't support gay marriage. As a civil ceremony they can do what they please, but in the eyes of God, it can't happen.
>>109057>It is not our place to judge others for sinning.
That's your belief. It's definitely my place to judge people for having fetishes about wanting to get infected with AIDS.
The average American gay male has an average life expectancy of just 52. Homosexual lifestyles are literally more dangerous than smoking.
Well, you can do what you want, but I'm talking about Catholicism. I assumed you were too, seeing as you gave your answer to a question asking about the religion.
If you just want to bitch and be hateful, feel free, but why reply when no-one asked about your personal opinions on if judging people is good?
>>109059>>109061>religion become less popular
Actually, globally atheism will peak in a couple of decades then decline if current demographic trends continue. Atheists tend to have low fecundity and religious people significantly higher. The belief that atheism is going to become the norm everywhere is driven by the same sort of people who believe there's some sort of impending "reformation" that is going to take place in Islam (because one took place in Christianity and as we all know history is just one linear narrative of social "progress").http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/11518702/Mapped-What-the-worlds-religious-landscape-will-look-like-in-2050.html>>109059>hateful
Tough love isn't hate. Enabling people's shitty, dysfunctional behavior because it means you don't have to be the momentary bad guy and can feel like a good person for not calling them out isn't positive. It's negative. It's literally how we've ended up with a society that seriously considers encouraging your 3 year old boy to dress up in pink dresses and consider HRT later down the line a sign of "progress".
Mindless compassion is no better than mindless hatred.
>>109063>It's literally how we've ended up with a society that seriously considers encouraging your 3 year old boy to dress up in pink dresses and consider HRT later down the line a sign of "progress".
Dude…if a little boy wants to wear a dress, why should I care? It could just be a phase. It doesn't necessarily mean he is going to transition in the future.
You are really concern trolling hard.
And there are tons of communities that you can join that have the same sexual values as you are presenting. Fundamental Christianity and Islam come to mind.
>>109063>Tough love isn't hate
You realise that tough love has to include love, right?
>Enabling people's shitty, dysfunctional behavior because it means you don't have to be the momentary bad guy and can feel like a good person for not calling them out isn't positive.
Allowing people to make their own decisions in their personal life is positive anon, it's the entire basis of liberty, which is the foundation of almost every western country.
>It's literally how we've ended up with a society that seriously considers encouraging your 3 year old boy to dress up in pink dresses
Who gives a shit what a 3 year old wears? Kids do all sorts of crap. When I was three I wore nothing as often as I was able to, do you think that's a sign of massive moral decay?
>consider HRT later down the line a sign of "progress".
A medical treatment that does lower the risk of people offing themselves? Shit, you're right, that is a bad thing, we should just ignore that it works and let them kill themselves.
You don't think that people with gender dysphoria just automatically are allowed to transition do you though? That would be silly of you.
Ikr I'd rather the little boy have the opportunity to live a happy life than box him into a lifestyle he hates.
I am so confused by this pol-anon's point. If religion is good or bad? He seems to have focused on the sexual control that religion can bring…why? If I was to point out the positive aspects of religion, I would focus on charitable giving, or the golden rule.
If it quacks like SRS…
Most Christians in the US are hardcore libtards on most issues. That's why I find it hilarious these fedoracore atheists who love liberalism and black science guy hate them so much. Christians are the most pro-immigration group around.
>It could just be a phase. It doesn't necessarily mean he is going to transition in the future.
How about encouraging him to behave in a way more befitting of social norms, for a start, and secondarily, to embrace his masculinity?
gg trying to retard a child's development to satisfy your own liberal cowardice at taking a stand on anything.
That's what "tolerance" really means. Someone with zero convictions.
Why is masculinity "good" if the hypothetical little boy doesn't identify with it? What if he is traditionally masculine, except for the fact that he is wearing a dress while he plays with his trucks?
I'd rather him be happy than force him into an arbitrary set of behaviors.
And fundamentalist Christians aren't exactly known for their tolerance. Think of the fundamentalists who are pushing to change science textbooks so they don't teach evolution? Or the ones who picket planned parenthood?
I think any christian group would be accepting to immigrants because it follows the teachings of Christ. You help people in need, like Jesus did.
Yeah, I've got no idea what he's trying to say at this point. He thinks Islam sucks, he doesn't like the teachings of Christianity, yet he seems to be arguing for religion. It's strange.>>109068
Come on anon, surely you can do better than "You must be SRS!"
And once again, why is a kid doing something retarded a bad thing? If anything by trying to force them to act a certain way that they don't want to and teaching them that social norms are the most important thing ever, you're just going to lead them down a path to other issues.
It's a three year old. They don't even understand what masculinity is yet, you're just trying to project your own insecurities "Better fit in, better be part of the stereotype!" onto the kid. If they're happier doing something else and it doesn't hurt anyone, let them.
>>109067>lifestyle he hates
What "lifestyle" are you referring to? Trannies are desperately unhappy people who die like flies as a result of suicide and GRIDS related illnesses. Do you think that shit is healthy?
You mean the same charitable giving that encourages people to remain inert and unproductive, or encourages people in Africa to have fertility rates way beyond what their own domestic production can satisfy? >>109066>Also, I should add that the idea of a reformation isn't based on "Oh, well it happened before so probably will now I guess"
That's exactly what it is based on. You believe in a concept called historical materialism, whether or not you are conscious of what it actually is and what it entails is immaterial. That's what you believe in. And it retards thought in all directions - It's why people in America and Europe genuinely believe that Russia is going to become this liberal democratic state, and that China will also become a liberal democratic state later down the line. It's why in 2010 you had people writing about how Tahrir Square was the nexus point for the Arab Spring, which was going to be about human/women's rights. When in reality it was about a nascent Islamist movement in just about every MENA country. >>109065>Allowing people to make their own decisions in their personal life is positive anon, it's the entire basis of liberty, which is the foundation of almost every western country.
That's where we fundamentally disagree. I do not believe personal liberty and equality are axiomatically positive things. I believe hierarchy and authority are, because these are the things that bring about order and stability, and these are the most fundamental constituent parts of a good life. Ask any non-western person if they'd rather eat well under a "dictator" or starve under a "democracy".
>You don't think that people with gender dysphoria just automatically are allowed to transition do you though? That would be silly of you.
The fact they're allowed to "transition" to having "cum pouches" in the first place is vile enough.
I don't often agree with that faggot Milo, but he was spot on in what he said about the tranny movement. It's as if a bunch of liberals sat around a room and discussed what the most fucked up thing they could get their footsoldiers to promote and support is.
Ikr! He's all "if religion can keep people in line, then it is good…but not islam…or Christianity"
What is he even arguing??? Why is he referencing reddit??? This is the worst red pilling I've ever seen.
>>109071>He thinks Islam sucks
I never actually offered a value judgment on Islam. You assume I said it "sucked" (why are libs so obsessed with childish language, as an aside?) because I didn't agree that it was interchangeable with Christianity.
I don't want significant numbers of Muslims in my country. There's a difference between that and thinking the religion is bad. It's good for MENA people. It's not good for me and mine.
>yet he seems to be arguing for religion.
No I'm not.
>Come on anon, surely you can do better than "You must be SRS!"
Accusing everyone of being a "concern troll" is pure SRS.
>And once again, why is a kid doing something retarded a bad thing?
Re-read this question to yourself.
>If anything by trying to force them to act a certain way
I agree, we shouldn't make our children go to school or take exams. We should just let them do what they want and become literal illiterates. Adults don't know better than children. That's fascism. Read Slate bigot.
>better be part of the stereotype
If they wanted to fit in these days, they should behave like a liberal faggot. That's what is normal unfortunately.
File: 1472836750425.gif (1.04 MB, 400x275, tumblr_nomkl777cN1upxwm8o1_r1_…)
I meant charitable giving as in, donating to food banks, volunteering, or other normal things that religious people are known to do. My catholic high school frequently had little donation events for local charities. Plus, every year the classes would "sponsor" an impoverished child for Christmas. All the donations collected by the class would be used to buy Christmas gifts for the sponsored child.
Surely, you can see the positive aspects in that????????? How can someone hate charitable giving? I'm not even religious, and even I donate to my apartment building's yearly food drive! Wtffffff.
File: 1472836842345.png (52.98 KB, 1097x304, Capture.PNG)
There's that childish/ironic language again. What is it with millenials and sounding like 16 year olds or pretending to be sassy black women?
Here's a checklist so you can tick off just how much of a jobless faggot millenial you actually are:
>Um, so this is apparently a thing>Douchecanoe/Douchenozzle>Yay?>My ovaries just exploded>Sexytimes>Wow, [insert overused shitlib trope here], much?>Faith in humanity - e.g. "This 13 year old girl stood up to her parents in the most badass way possible. Faith in humanity restored.">Sorry, Not Sorry>Throw shade>Educate yourself (spend $100,000 on a Sociology degree)>Sex positive (slut)>Yeah. Nah. >Yay <noun>! (More sarcastic, even faggier way to dismiss uncomfortable ideas. "Yay binary gender!")>What the actual fuck?>I literally can't even right now
>>109072>That's exactly what it is based on.
>ou believe in a concept called historical materialism,
>I believe hierarchy and authority are, because these are the things that bring about order and stability, and these are the most fundamental constituent parts of a good life
As long as that authority agrees with your personal morals, right? Sounds more to me like you just want someone to enforce your views than anything else.
>Ask any non-western person if they'd rather eat well under a "dictator" or starve under a "democracy".
How about we ask them a non-loaded question?
>The fact they're allowed to "transition" to having "cum pouches" in the first place is vile enough.
I honestly have no idea what you're referencing by a "cum pouch", and when I googled it I got results including interracial sex with a transgender person. Seems strange you're arguing for how "moral degeneracy" is bad and transgender people are vile while using fetish terms to me.
>It's as if a bunch of liberals sat around a room and discussed what the most fucked up thing they could get their footsoldiers to promote and support is.
Are you saying that liberals invented transgenderism? Or that it was liberals who decided that due to a lot of cases of this having no solution, and the transitioning lowers the suicide rate, that allowing them do transition is an appropriate last line treatment?
Did you know that if someone believes a leg is the source of all their pain, and has terrible BDD, and has consistently believed this one thing for 10 years, with no treatments left and they're a serious suicide risk, that they can actually be allowed to have it surgically amputated?>>109073
It really is, it's just strange how he's got this sense of "I'm so much more educated and smarter than you", while no-one has actually managed to figure out what he's actually arguing yet.>>109074>I don't want significant numbers of Muslims in my country.
But why? Don't they agree with you?
>Accusing everyone of being a "concern troll" is pure SRS.
>Re-read this question to yourself.
No, it makes perfect sense. Kids do dumb shit as far as we see it. They play in mud, they dress up as strange stuff, all sorts of weird stuff. I knew a kid who pretended he was a dog for like a month. Why are these bad?
>I agree, we shouldn't make our children go to school or take exams.
>what is a false comparison?
>Adults don't know better than children
Most do, hence why most don't care if a kid decides to wear a dress or act a bit child like, but apparently not you.
>If they wanted to fit in these days, they should behave like a liberal faggot.
Cool, so you support it then, as it would be fitting into the social norms.
File: 1472836921256.jpg (17.52 KB, 480x480, 7aac0f27aaeec22e2b63da7cd9d462…)
Holy shit. A-are you okay?
Most western charity is directed overseas unfortunately.
The Africa shit is just nauseating at this point. Your average Oxfam marketing plan is literally just a way of guilting emotionally vulnerable people like 26 year old unmarried lonely cat-ladies.
Anon, you realise that unless you were born before around 1980, you're a millenial, right? The whole point is that you became a young adult after the turn of the millenium.
You need to chill out.
Did you miss that I specifically said "local charities"?
And if people are donating to others overseas…is that wrong? I mean, I try to support local charities when I can, but I don't scoff at ones who help the needy elsewhere.
File: 1472837337568.png (230.54 KB, 1639x491, Capture.PNG)
>>109084>And if people are donating to others overseas…is that wrong?
Yes. Outgroup altruism is virtue signalling bullshit. It doesn't even help most of the time, it just encourages things like unsustainable population growth in Africa - In before "but X place can feed the entire world".
Yes, no shit. But Africa itself has no domestic productivity to support that many people, it's supported purely by western largesse. >>109085>reduction ad absurdum
No. You literally said we should let children do what they want because, and I'm using your words here, liberty is the central value of the western world.
Now, if you want to qualify that with some arbitrary qualification to save face, go for it.>>109086
>>109087>You literally said we should let children do what they want because, and I'm using your words here, liberty is the central value of the western world.
I said that kids should be allowed to do retarded shit while they're kids, and you turned it into some absurd thing where apparently I said kids should just be allowed to run wild completely, and then took a different argument completely and pretended I said it to support that.
And the fallacy fits, here's the definition>Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: "argument to absurdity", pl.: argumenta ad absurdum), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance
You took what I said, then went "Oh, if we accept that this completely ridiculous thing would happen!", despite me never actually saying anything to support it. A three year old should be allowed to be a three year old. A six year old should be in school, but still be allowed to be young.>>109089
Do you just pull all your arguments from whatever the fuck MPC is?
You asked me why overseas charity was wrong. Of course I'm going to talk about Africa. >>109094>and you turned it into some absurd thing where apparently I said kids should just be allowed to run wild
So you're ok with encouraging little boys to pretend to be girls for some indeterminate period of time before they can get HRT, but not ok with not sending them to school?
Why? What's the distinction?
>Do you just pull all your arguments from whatever the fuck MPC is?
t. someone who believes in Rawlsian conceptions of justice without even realizing who Rawls was.
What is MPC and where can I read the entire list of trigger
File: 1472837768859.png (20.2 KB, 1656x202, Capture.PNG)
It's pretty easy to google and find.
>>109095>Why? What's the distinction?
Because first off, a three year old doesn't understand fucking gender politics, and secondly, them wearing a dress has no impact on the rest of their lives.
>t. someone who believes in Rawlsian conceptions of justice without even realizing who Rawls was.
I don't really see how some philosopher from the 20th century created Christian morals, but okay. And you didn't answer my question.
>>109101>Because first off, a three year old doesn't understand fucking gender politics, and secondly, them wearing a dress has no impact on the rest of their lives.
You think them turning up to nursery/school in a dress is not going to have a knock-on effect?
>created Christian morals
Christianity does not consider liberty the most fundamental moral good. I'm not a Christian and even I know this.
Oh wow. Thanks for the link.
But no matter your opinion on Africa, I still support charitable giving. Sorry, bud.
This site has to be one of the most autistic things I've ever read, and I read that entire thread about undesirable guys that got posted here not that long ago.
Thanks anon, wasn't expecting to find this much milk on /b/.
Different anon, but no I don't think that situation would shape the rest of their lives.
I remember tons of weird shit my friends did when we were kids, and they are well-adjusted people today.
When I was like 4 I used to like taking my shirt off, and making my belly "talk"…my nipples were the "eyes" and my bellybutton was the "mouth". My parents just laughed and I'm a normal adult today. I'm not a nudist or anything like that.
MPC has been linked on lolcow before?
Interesting. I know it became more popular with Sam Hyde's rise to fame.
Arguably one of the best sites for political OC. For all the hair-pulling about /pol/, /pol/ is basically overrun with:
troll threads. I left there years ago.
>>109102>You think them turning up to nursery/school in a dress is not going to have a knock-on effect?
No, I don't. No-one who works at a nursery school is going to be judging kids for acting like kids.
>Christianity does not consider liberty the most fundamental moral good.
Free will is a pretty major concept in Christianity anon. A good Christian should aspire to live under God's teachings, but giving others the freedom to make their own choices, and not judging them for them because we're imperfect is pretty basic stuff as far as Christianity goes. Maybe you shouldn't talk about this stuff if you don't understand it though?>>109106>MPC has been linked on lolcow before?
I've personally never seen it, it probably has at points.
>Arguably one of the best sites for political OC
Did you read that link? It was pretty autistic, I didn't really see a single thing of worth.
The rest might be okay, but I don't really care enough to look when I saw someone talking about the "Atheism Poz" thread.
Have you ever read lolcow's mental health thread? Or the abusive relationship thread?
A good number of the posters on this site are yukapon-esque lunatics, and these are people in their mid to late 20s in some cases - people who have been sectioned multiple times, been beaten up by multiple ex-boyfriends, hell, even escorted in Japan. MPC is comparatively normal and well-adjusted by any measure.
I wonder if pol-anon has been around many children. They do a lot of weird shit that they grow out of.
I remember when my dad was switching to electric razors when I was a kid, he removed the blade from his old razor, and gave it to my brother to "practice" shaving at like 5 years old. I saw and I wanted to do it too! So my dad gave me a bladeless razor, and let me play.
It had no effect on my personal development. I'm a straight woman who identifies as a woman. It was just silly kids playing to pretend to be like dad.
Ya, but those threads don't come with a list of trigger
>>109112>don't come with a list of trigger words.
The thread linked isn't about trigger
words. It's about the way a generation of people who were raised by the internet and coddled by touchy-feely social attitudes speak.
No, because mental health threads are inevitably filled with tumblr shit and people self diagnosing. And even if it's true, I don't think a thread dedicated to that topic is really comparable to that sort of industrial grade autism.
Like, look at this shit>Already have Amazoid Prime? You can still give back to this gay-friendly cyberpunk samizdat forum by visiting Amazon using this referral link to buy video games and Lego sculptures THEY'RE LEARNING TOOLS, DAD.
>gay millennialisms>a fag to english dictionary
>In the Atheism Poz thread, Barter Town suggested that the phrase "that is super shitty" should be added to millennialfag boilerplate.
>>109116>Already have Amazoid Prime? You can still give back to this gay-friendly cyberpunk samizdat forum by visiting Amazon using this referral link to buy video games and Lego sculptures THEY'RE LEARNING TOOLS, DAD.
lol'ed hard. Poking fun at man/womenchildren and fags.
>In the Atheism Poz thread, Barter Town suggested that the phrase "that is super shitty" should be added to millennialfag boilerplate.
Hilarious. Also true. https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22is+super+shitty%22
I died at "that is super shitty" being a trigger
I think I know more millenials than I originally thought.
Well, you're entitled to find it funny anon, but it's still pretty damn autistic. And my point was more that there's a fucking Atheism Poz thread, and the entire forum seems to be millenials calling everyone else millenials.>>109110
Yeah, I agree, it's like they think that if a kid does something at all that they're automatically going to be that forever unless it's discouraged.
I met a kid who pretended to be a dog for months, and everyone just played into it because he was having fun and it didn't hurt anyone, and I can safely say that he is still safely in the human race.
So…words that ~trigger
~ a response from you?
MPC is admittedly pretty autistic, as it was born of a dispute between members of an SA spin-off, but the average age is pretty high and there aren't many NEETfags/childish nerds. >>109122
Stop reaching. There's a reason lolcow is painfully unfunny and has literally created no OC ever. Even /r9k/ are funnier than you.
Yeah, you caught me, I really really wish I was Kadee.
And I know this is .farm, but we really don't need any strawmen.>>109123>Even /r9k/ are funnier than you.
Why don't you go back there? Not every forum needs to be le ebin meme factory anyway.
There was a group of boys at my elementary school who called themselves the "wolf club gang" and they all pretended to be wolves. They are perfectly normal adults today.
Kids are weird!!! If this anon saw me as a kid, he'd be horrified. I went through a phase at like 5 where I'd just ask strangers if they thought I was pretty. My mom and I would be at the store, and I'd just turn to the next person in line and be like "do you think I am pretty?"
I'm not an out of control attention seeker today. It was just a stupid phase as a little kid.
>>109125>There was a group of boys at my elementary school who called themselves the "wolf club gang" and they all pretended to be wolves.
I think every year has a group like that honestly, when I was in primary school there was a group of at least 20 kids who all pretended to be gangsters for like a year straight, yet none grew up into a life of crime.
I don't get how this guy's managed to convince himself that kids never go through phases, and that if you allow a three year old to ever do anything that isn't absolutely normal for their particular gender that it'll result in them automatically becoming transgender and an outcast.
He reminds me of the stereotype of the father who gets all worked up over their son playing with a barbie doll.
Why do you keep saying this? Sure, there's a couple cancerous threads where people just stalk others who aren't really doing anything that interesting, but most are just documenting people who act in ridiculous ways and having a laugh about them.
And why do you feel like the end goal of any forum is creating memes?
I think he is also failing to see the innocence of children. They don't understand sexual politics. They don't really think sexually.
One of my coworkers told me that when he was playing with his toddler, she acidently hit him in the crotch. As he was groaning in pain, she said "kiss better?"
He started laughing being like "no no we don't ask to kiss there! That's a private place!" But he knew that she just didn't get it. She gets a kiss to make it better when she gets hurt, she hurt her dad, so she wanted to make him better.
Kids have an innocence that makes it hard for them to understand things like that.
You're right there, it's like how parents sometimes have issues with kids masturbating until they end up with sores. It's not a sexual thing, the kid just goes "Hey, that feels good, I'll do it more". They're not fantasising or sexually active or anything, and it's certainly not an indication of them going to grow up to be chronic masturbators.
It's just strange how he focused on that example.>>109132
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't vendetta threads banned?
And sure, not all cows are that interesting all the time, but not all content is going to be top tier on any forum.
I agree completely. Even when kids start to understand "grown up" things, it takes a few years for them to develop a full understanding of it.
When I was babysitting as a teenager, when I told a little boy that I was going to get a bottle for his baby sister he got very confused. He told me that his sister drank from "a boobie" not a bottle!
So I told him that my boobies didn't have milk in them, and he got very confused. So I had to explain that only ladies who had babies would make milk. Not every lady.
So he understood that sometimes babies drink from bottles, and sometimes they are breastfed, but since I had boobs, he thought I'd just breastfeed the baby myself.
So even if they grasp the basics (milk comes from breasts) he didn't know anything past that. He didn't think that far, because he was 4 years old.
Exactly so you are choosing to ignore the French perspective which is the main concern here. They are devoted towards liberal values to an autocratic extent to de-emphasize religions place in larger society and make it a personal choice not to be shared when in public.
>And I would feel the same way in any venue. If someone is wearing a necklace with a star of David in a restaurant, but they are just enjoying a meal with their friends, then why should I care?
You may not care, the french do though. Your problem here is you are still looking at this from an American perspective, the French have a ver different perspective on what liberalism is and also do not see themselves as a melting pot culture but an established one. It is certainly about conformity, it's the same reason wearing the cross is banned in public schools and places. So maybe it would seem appropriate yo you but for the French it may not especially since Islam is in a very contentious place currently in French society.
If that's the hill France wants to die on, then more power to them. But it will bring bad press, and criticism from other countries.
PS I'm not American.
>>109142>If that's the hill France wants to die on, then more power to them. But it will bring bad press, and criticism from other countries.
So what? They have survived invasion from every single European power during the French revolution, to world wars, Nazi occupation and multiple terrorist attacks. They will survive.
It is important for a nation to stand by it's values and culture even in the face of criticism from foreign influence. If not for that their would be no France
>PS I'm not American.
I did not think you were, but you approached the situation for a very narrow minded American view. I would know because I am American
are they teaching them how to not rape?
I think she's mocking them because it isn't going to work.
We've got third generation pakis who don't realize what appropriate sexual behavior is, let alone what the French have with their North Africans.
The idea culture is this thing you can take off and put a new one on like some sort of piece of clothing is laughable leftard bullshit and has been proven wrong time and time again.
I think you got the impression I'm a /pol/ sort. I'm not.
>The idea culture is this thing you can take off and put a new one on like some sort of piece of clothing is laughable leftard bullshit and has been proven wrong time and time again.
Are you implying that immigrants can't integrate into the culture of their new country? Because that would be really, really stupid, and ignoring all the cases where people do assimilate into new cultures, even on a large scale level.
The solution to people who don't understand appropriate sexual behaviour is education, and if they still act inappropriately, the judicial system.
>>109094>I said that kids should be allowed to do retarded shit while they're kids
What a retarded statement. That is a sure way to make them pathetic brats.
In order to instill positive values in children one should treat them as little adults from day 1.
I.e. no doing retarded shit, no babytalk, no enabling of breaking the social norms etc.
>>110340>even on a large scale level
I'd like to hear a couple of examples.
Different poster, btw.
>>110340>Are you implying that immigrants can't integrate into the culture of their new country? Because that would be really, really stupid, and ignoring all the cases where people do assimilate into new cultures, even on a large scale level.
Except a demographically significant alien group has never truly "integrated" into a host society.
Look at the examples leftists give in the UK. They say we are a multicultural country from the beginning of time because of the Angles and Saxons, but these were quite literally violent invading migratory waves.
Fully "integrating" a minority group requires that the demographic weight of the majority is such that intermarriage leads to said minority group gradually becoming a part of the majority ingroup through sheer force of numbers and inter-generational intermarrying and childbearing. This isn't the case in the US, UK, France etc. These are Empire-states, with competing tribal groups who will never, ever integrate in any meaningful way and whose vocal commitment even in a rhetorical way to the notion of integration requires that the hosts agree to broaden the net of what constitutes "American", "British" or "French" so their own outgroup culture doesn't have to be disrupted too much by any such commitment.
You can have integration or you can have mass immigration, but you cannot have both, and there has literally never been a single case in history of the latter leading to the former.
If you want a relevant example of actual integration on a scale I'm imagining, think of the descendants of white/asian couples who reside and permanently stay in Japan.
Three or four generations down the line their offspring will be physically and culturally indistinguishable from native Japanese, simply because it is demographically impossible for these people to establish coherent, self-identifying "communities"/outgroups, with their own political apparatus. There simply aren't enough of them. Even if they wanted to marry another Eurasian, chances are they'd never even meet one to get to know them well enough to actually perpetuate their distinctive outgroup bloodline in the first place.
This is what integration really means. Where are the descendants of Lafcadio Hearn today for example? Do they identify as anything other than Japanese and only Japanese?
Couple of points, there are gradations of distance, both culturally and genetically depending on where you're coming from - since you're the kind of person who I imagine is offended by the latter, we'll stick to the former. So yes, I don't deny that France accommodating a comparatively small number (and compared to the waves of maghrebis that followed the 1970s liberalization of France's laws on immigration and citizenship it was a comparatively tiny number indeed) of people from a comparatively similar cultural background was to some degree an accomplishment, but pretending that you can take this and say "well, this means you can just open up your borders to tens of millions of Africans and MENAs and eventually they'll all become like the 0.1% of France's population that was Spanish several generations ago" is stupid.
It's not only stupid. It's what your and my leaders both believe in, as an article of religious faith. If there's one thing all of Europe's center left and center right parties agree on, it's that mass immigration needs to continue in perpetuity, forever.
That tells you something about elite opinion. >>110370
I'm not "lumping in France with anglo countries", but it's a fact France has produced the highest per capita number of terrorists of any country in Europe and has quasi-lawless zones in many of the Banileue. Pretty much every summer these days there is car burning. It's not just some isolated thing.
>Anglo countries are and always have been multiculturalist
The distinction here is between nation, e.g. Japan or South Korea, and empire-state, in other words a state composed up of numerous competing, often fractious ethnic groups which are often needed to be kept in check with increasingly powerful executives, which is really the future of all Western Europe and US/Canada.
Saying that a nation like England has "always been an empire-state" is absurd. England was a nation, up until the 1950s from its foundation in the Middle Ages.
File: 1473892208726.png (1.49 MB, 968x664, parishongkong.png)
Left is a third world city (Paris).
Right is a first world city (Hong Kong).
File: 1473892562352.png (1.36 MB, 1355x723, 1389757309410.png)
The vast majority of it are the shithole suburbs though. The center is actually the minority.
Though even around the historic center you see endemic criminality on a scale that makes London look like Tokyo by comparison.
The French state is so dysfunctional it can't even protect its most hallowed tourist sites. Good old liberal democracy, worst form of government except for all the others amirite?
File: 1473892902679.jpg (152.25 KB, 968x638, immigration france histoire.jp…)
It wasn't "comparatively tiny", pic related. It was "large scale" by any measure.
The reason this no longer works nearly as well as it used to is that yes, it's more immigrants in a shorter time, and also that they're culturally more distant from France especially with Islam, but most importantly that French elites have largely abandoned its assimilationist policies in favour of Anglo style integration, while also largely deconstructing the French nation.
>The distinction here is between nation, e.g. Japan or South Korea, and empire-state, in other words a state composed up of numerous competing, often fractious ethnic groups
France has always been a nation built from an empire. What you describe is multiculturalism, which is the opposite of the French system, which is all about eliminating any community of any sort that isn't the national community. Britain on the other hand has always had social classes for example, which is why British elites don't much mind there being foreign communities on their soil. They never considered themselves the same people as working class Brits in the first place either.
File: 1473893839944.png (458.35 KB, 1132x2534, 1386083862976.png)
>>110377>It was "large scale" by any measure.
What proportion of the population did they make up? I doubt it was anything comparable to the current scale, which will make white French a minority by the end of the century if it keeps up. >>110378
See, this is what I'm talking about. You've become so numb to the decivilizing effects of liberalism, mass immigration and democracy that you think it's ok because it's only one extremely large swathe of the city's suburbs, not the city's suburbs in their entirety. Do you not realize that in places like Taipei, Tokyo, Hong Kong etc you can wander into working class neighborhoods at night and there's no grafitti, nobody will bother you, people take care of what they own, theft is hardly ever heard of, let alone violent crime and so on?
The idea that "well, it's only one massive part of the city" to me sounds like you've just accustomed yourself to seeing this sort of arrangement as a function of urban normality. Which to me suggests that western countries are basically becoming third world relative to East Asian ones.
>France has always been a nation built from an empire
No it wasn't. France as a Kingdom was born out of the breakup of the Carolingian Empire of Charlemagne for reasons of ethnic discord in part.
>What you describe is multiculturalism
What I describe is the natural consequence of turning de facto ethnostates with large, overwhelming demographic majorities belonging to one group into multiracial empires, where there either is no demographic majority anymore, or what one there is is diminishing and is no longer overwhelmingly dominant in numerical terms.
To this you'll say "yeah, but X, Y and Z policies will change things".
To which I say, no they won't. That has been tried for decades.
But really, let's skip all of that meaningless yes/no back and forth, because time is the only test. You've been trying to paper over the fundamental cracks that unprecedented racial diversity has created for decades. Nothing has really worked. In my country, by many metrics Muslims become more radical inter-generationally. Blacks commit an overwhelming majority of violent crime in the capital and we're seeing the emergence of problems we never had to deal with as a country before precisely because we brought these people in (honor killings, FGM etc).
France may be different in that its way of blinding itself is by pretending random Ghanians are actually French because football, but the end result of both ways of deceiving oneself are the same: White minoritization and an increasingly dysfunctional state.
>They never considered themselves the same people as working class Brits in the first place either.
Nonsense. British elites took great pride in their Anglo heritage, as did the ordinary people in traditionally Anglo heartlands. You're just echoing idiots like Marat, whose bloodlust was far worse than that of any British aristocrat. The last decent thinker France produced was de Maistre, on that note.
Your own elites in much of the media are French Jews anyway, I doubt they consider themselves the same as some Catholic from the South of France. Jews tend to see themselves as a perennial outgroup wherever they are, hence all the pathologies that arise from this worldview and their dysfunctional relationship with the other/gentile for time immemorial.>>110382
The homicide rate tells you very little about actual violent criminality in general, see:http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/6/2/128.abstract(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)
>What proportion of the population did they make up?
You can see on the graph, though that's in absolute numbers.
>you think it's ok
Where did I say anything of the sort? I was explaining the difference between Paris and the region.
>No it wasn't.
Yes it was. France is made of territory that was previously not only Oïl but also Occitan, Breton, Alemanic, Flemish, Catalan, Basque, and Corsican to name a few. All of those were melted into a common French identity, and so it was once large immigrant groups such as Italians, Spanish, and Portuguese arrived.
>all that text after ">What you describe is multiculturalism"
I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
>British elites took great pride in their Anglo heritage
British elites have never been the same people as lower classes, culturally or otherwise. Britain has always been a profoundly stratified class society, are you seriously denying this? This is the reason why unlike France, British elites aren't bothered with large foreign communities existing on British soil and even with Islamic rules being enforced in sections of British territory. That's only barely more foreign to them than the English working class is. France by contrast doesn't tolerate this because it puts a huge emphasis on equality and on national unity, concepts that aren't part of traditional British values.
>The homicide rate tells you very little about actual violent criminality in general
It tells more than baseless claims such as yours.
>>110388>You can see on the graph, though that's in absolute numbers.
That's why I asked the question. Your graph puts Maghrebis at the overwhelming plurality. So what proportion of the population at the time did Spanish and Portugese immigrants make up?
>All of those were melted into a common French identity
No they weren't. That's a post-revolutionary thing. These peoples formed separate mini-nations of their own within the French Kingdom before that. And many of the ones you cite weren't even a part of the French Kingdom.
>Where did I say anything of the sort?
So what's your solution to it?
>profoundly stratified class society
Compared to what? India? China? The Middle East? Every Nation has classes because not all people are born equal and through reasons of superior genetic quality and breeding, certain self-sustaining groups emerge.
>I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.
It doesn't matter what you call it. The end results and the dysfunctional living conditions and politics that they create are more or less exactly the same.
>and even with Islamic rules being enforced in sections of British territory
That's because of the way common law functions as opposed to civil codes, when applied to civil cases. In other words it has nothing to do with the elites.
Both British and French elites are committed to making white people minorities. That's the point. What they call their genocidal policies are besides the point for me, since it makes no difference to the endgoal. A state largely populated by blacks and muslims in 2100 is undesirable regardless of whether it attempts to be nominally secular or nominally otherwise.
>It tells more than baseless claims such as yours.
Did you even bother to read the paper? It's medicine and criminology, not politics. The point is that improvements to medicine and on the scene medical care in crime-ridden areas (for example in London we have police ambulances that are constantly on the move in problem areas to make sure that any niggers who stab each other are kept alive) has played a huge role in the declining homicide rate and that this isn't necessarily reflective of a decline in criminal violence as a result.
>That's why I asked the question.
Look up historical population numbers for France. you can already see there were more Spaniards in proportion in the 30s than Maghrebis in the 90s.
>No they weren't. That's a post-revolutionary thing. These peoples formed separate mini-nations of their own within the French Kingdom before that. And many of the ones you cite weren't even a part of the French Kingdom.
Nonsense. The process of French unification spanned the entirety of French history, and a sense of French nationhood first emerged around 1200. Which was not related to ethnicity at all but to the French nation and state (or its medieval equivalent that was the king). In fact you have it the wrong way around, it's ethnic nationalism that's an invention of the French Revolution before being exported across the world, and it remains the only way most countries can think of nationalism. But either way you're contradicting your previous claim that France wasn't built from an empire.
>So what's your solution to it?
That's a completely different question, but to sum it up the solution is the reconstruction of French sovereignty.
>Compared to what?
>The end results and the dysfunctional living conditions and politics that they create are more or less exactly the same.
Not really. If France still followed its traditional model instead of letting it get gangrened by multiculturalism, it would be far better off. Thanks to what's left of that model it still is far better off than for example Britain when you look at Islam and the loss of sovereignty, despite having quite a bit more of them.
>That's because of the way common law functions
And because of the lack of secularism, and because equality isn't valued, and because of the tradition of liberal tolerance, and because of the lack of a proper state… all of those things are just expressions of the same basic difference, that between aristocratic Britain and monarchic France. Ask a traditional upper class Brit what he thinks of exotic traditions taking hold in Britain and he'll most likely find it marvelous. Ask a traditional upper class Frenchman and he'll be offended at the idea of people living in France without following French culture or French values. This is exactly why something like the burkini ban, which was near universally condemned outside of France, is supported by most French people. It's a deeply ingrained difference in mentality, not just about common law.
>this isn't necessarily reflective of a decline in criminal violence
You made an unfounded claim that London is much safer than Paris. I mentioned homicide rates which don't support that at all. So I don't know what it is that you base that claim on but it's nothing you've quoted. And unless France has vastly superior on the scene medical care to Britain, I don't see how more crime in Paris wouldn't be reflected by more deaths.
>>110394>100% nigger tier
They had crop-rotation agriculture and small-scale urbanization. Granted, compared to Rome they were low-tier, but calling them nigger-tier is unfair.
A lot can change in a few thousand years genetically. You'd be surprised. For example the East Asian genome was reshaped quite dramatically by a gut-wrenching change in diet that caused a huge population bottleneck about 3500 BC or so. >>110393>Look up historical population numbers for France
So you don't actually know what the proportion was, but you're telling me it was just as large as it is now?
>Which was not related to ethnicity at all
So a bunch of people considered themselves to have a common root enough to diverge from the existing political structure, but it was "not related to ethnicity"?
>it's ethnic nationalism that's an invention of the French Revolution before being exported across the world
That's incorrect. Ethnic-Nationalism is just a more coherent expression of ethnocentrism. The Tang Dynasty for example predates revolutionary France by about a thousand years, yet had anti-miscegenation laws and outbursts of ethnic cleansing of non-Han.
>but to sum it up the solution is the reconstruction of French sovereignty.
This is the same political rhetoric that the usual suspects have been spouting for decades. How is yours any different to theirs?
So there are no classes in France? And Britain is stratified by class only in comparison to France, how is this a "profound" difference? Re-evaluate your choice of words.
>Thanks to what's left of that model it still is far better off than for example Britain when you look at Islam and the loss of sovereignty
I'm not really keen to get into a pissing match since all of Western Europe and North America is well and truly fucked in the long run, but France is lawless in a way Britain still hasn't descended to yet. In Paris I see things I never see in London: purse-snatching, hordes of beggars everywhere and so on. For example, are you denying that the car burning is now an annual occurrence?
>If France still followed its traditional model
You mean Monarchism? I actually agree with this.
But no. Regardless of the nominal model, if your demographics resemble those of Somalia or Eritrea, the end result is not going to be pretty. Cultures do not exist independently of the people who create them, they are a racial construct.
>and because equality isn't valued
Both center-right and center-left here agree with the general axiom that making things more equal makes them better. If there is an inequality in outcome, for example, if not enough blacks are going to Oxbridge, then it's enough to trigger
lengthy debates on the nation's biggest political shows, broadsheets, parliament itself and so on. The institutions themselves reaffirm their commitment to this equality of outcome.
But why is an equality of outcome desirable in the first place? Why would you even expect there to be an equality of outcome? It seems we've skipped this part.
>This is exactly why something like the burkini ban
Most of your political elite condemned it though. It almost certainly won't stand up in court.
>You made an unfounded claim that London is much safer than Paris.>And unless France has vastly superior on the scene medical care to Britain, I don't see how more crime in Paris wouldn't be reflected by more deaths.
I'm saying that both Paris and London are much more violent than the homicide rate would initially suggest. Both cities are significantly more dangerous than they were in the 1950s. The fact we've gone backwards and people don't really seem to care about this, and care instead about more manufactured leftard protests in the vein of 1968 is just depressing at this point.
Now, regarding Paris or London and relative danger. This is all anecdotal, but I've seen petty criminality of a kind on trips to Paris that I just don't see in London at all. I also see a general level of filth (although both cities are third world compared to East Asian ones) that I don't see in London. Even in shithole boroughs.
>Ask a traditional upper class Brit what he thinks of exotic traditions taking hold in Britain and he'll most likely find it marvelous.
I actually agree with this. But I think it's the same in France. If your elites were so resolutely opposed to mass immigration then it wouldn't have been allowed to occur in the first place.
Almost every country not based off a purely indigenous population.>>110367>Except a demographically significant alien group has never truly "integrated" into a host society.
What do you define as demographically significant?
>This isn't the case in the US, UK, France etc. These are Empire-states, with competing tribal groups who will never
What? are you just pretending to be retarded? Someone being different doesn't mean they're tribal groups, stop using completely unnecessary biased language.
Every country everywhere has different subcultures, but they're all influenced heavily by the overall culture they exist within. The punk movement was very different in England to the US for example, despite it being a counter culture within both.
So are you just arguing that we should have no subcultures influenced by different countries, or that we should have no subcultures full stop? And if it's the former, why are they different to one influenced by other factors?
>You can have integration or you can have mass immigration, but you cannot have both, and there has literally never been a single case in history of the latter leading to the former.
There has been hundreds. Exoduses from different European countries in WW2, gold rushes at different points in time, and countless others. If you're just going to say outright wrong things, please don't bother posting.>>110358
You're right. As soon as they can hold a power tool, we should put them to work in the sweat shops.
>So you don't actually know what the proportion was, but you're telling me it was just as large as it is now?
As you can see on the graph the number of Spaniards was almost the same as later the number of Maghrebis, while the total population was obviously smaller.
>So a bunch of people considered themselves to have a common root enough to diverge from the existing political structure
What on Earth are you talking about?
>Ethnic-Nationalism is just a more coherent expression of ethnocentrism.
Which did not exist in the West before the French Revolution.
>the usual suspects have been spouting for decades
>And Britain is stratified by class only in comparison to France, how is this a "profound" difference?
What don't you understand? Britain is a class society while Republican France is egalitarian and radically opposed to classes.
>In Paris I see things I never see in London: purse-snatching
Yeah no, I live in Paris and I've never seen this happen, I very much doubt you have. But crime is a different question, I'm talking about identity. The hold Islam has taken in parts of Britain including on essential sovereignty powers goes far beyond anything one could imagine in France. I'm not saying Britain doesn't do other things better than France, I'm saying that the assimilationist model is the only one that makes it possible for a nation to survive substantial immigration.
>You mean Monarchism?
I mean Republican assimilation.
>Cultures are a racial construct.
This is complete retardedness. Sticking with France, French is not and never was a race. There is nothing you could possibly define as a "French race". There is no French gene. France as a nation is defined by culture, values, and will. None of those things are innate, all of them are acquired. And in fact you can find people from any race in the world who share those three things, and are therefore as French as anyone can be.
>If there is an inequality in outcome, for example
I'm talking about culture and identity, not wealth (although that's also taken less seriously in Britain than in France). One example of this is the variety of accents and dialects in England, depending on region and social class, contrasted with how there is precisely one correct way to speak French. This is because British mentality is perfectly fine with people being born into a certain regional or class identity and never leaving it. While French mentality abhors the idea of such sub-identities and the inequality (and lack of freedom in the French sense) it implies. This difference in attitudes is simply extended to immigrants.
>Most of your political elite condemned it though.
That's completely false, only one minister said something against it, and she's a Moroccan citizen. The (socialist) prime minister, the women's rights minister, and of course the entire conservative opposition party as well as the far right all supported the bans. As did almost the entire press. But if you want another example, look at how the Mohammed caricatures were received in France, where the entire political-media class supported Charlie Hebdo even before the attacks, contrasted with how British TV channels and papers censored the post-attack cover of Charlie Hebdo out of respect for the Muslim community. Or how the British press already reacted to French hijab and niqab bans. There are countless examples like that, and it shows it's not just about laws, but about the values people hold dear. And even if they're under constant attack, in France traditional Republican values still have a strong presence, which is why modern politicians still have to at least appear to defend them.
>If your elites were so resolutely opposed to mass immigration
They never were, quite the contrary. They supported it as a way to create more French people, through complete assimilation into French culture and values. French Republican assimilation does not oppose immigration, it just makes it work better. If anything that encouraged it.
File: 1474088028565.png (517.33 KB, 627x684, 1473963903629.png)
Not "rayciss" but I really think that what Europe is doing (importing a bunch of 3rd world economic migrants that breed like rats) is insanely fucking stupid. These people don't contribute anything and expect handouts just because they pop out 1 kid every 9 months. Yeah, some diversity is fine, but replacing an entire population with bottom of the barrel rejects is the definition of insanity.
If you're white and you're in a relationship with a non white person you're contributing to the genocide of our people. Don't forget that. Hypocrites have no right to complain about mass immigration and shitskin immigrants.(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)
Sorry but you are incorrect, such christian institutions survived on donations. There was a long time where they guilt tripped their believers to give them money, goods etc in order to spend less time in purgatory.
Not the anon you were talking too, but this is basic history. The vatican, mother theresa etc have been donated billions if you wish to talk more globally. But even your local church would have received donations via their flock.
Ultimately the English class system is about wealth. If you have to work and are an employee you are working class, if you employ others then you are middle class, if you sustain yourself by inherited wealth and land and do not need to work then you are upper class.
Class is to do with capital,the fact these groups have different social interests is not the issue.
File: 1474789567813.jpg (140.61 KB, 750x1095, CtK4IhYUsAAuuy3.jpg)
Turk kills four white girls in Burlington because he hates women.
File: 1478509118627.jpg (375.48 KB, 650x2018, crime_statistics_01.jpg)
It's perfectly normal for nonblacks to fear/despise blacks given violent crime statistics
File: 1478685472177.jpg (88.84 KB, 1200x654, gold lel face [WARNING-CRITICA…)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA(USER HAS BEEN PUT OUT TO PASTURE)
This thread is from two years ago and was inactive for a year until >>261935
Just ignore it and it’ll go back to irrelevancy