Antifa Writer Beaten Up By Muslims Shouting ‘Filthy White’

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

These are all the kinds of mentally ill delusions that the far-left twists themselves into. Ironically, it's also the same kinds of people who clutch their pearls if they see a crucifix that say such things.

It's that special brand of crazy that happens when you're so far down the road to hell that you don't want to admit it.

This is simply unfounded denunciation for the sake of it. There is not a shred of intelligence to this.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

These are all the kinds of mentally ill delusions that the far-left twists themselves into. Ironically, it's also the same kinds of people who clutch their pearls if they see a crucifix that say such things.

It's that special brand of crazy that happens when you're so far down the road to hell that you don't want to admit it.

Just out of curiosity, are you referring to anyone around here?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is simply unfounded denunciation for the sake of it. There is not a shred of intelligence to this.

Your expectations are showing. In Civman's case you need to lower them, substantially.

 

[Funky]

If we extrapolate from this figure, assuming recent figures of two million Muslims living in the UK,8 we may calculate that some 600,000 Muslims would prefer to live in Britain under sharia law."

Currently there are ~2,7 million Muslims living in the UK, hence 30% are almost 900,000 who are in favor of sharia. The exact numbers however will vary, depending on where the polling takes place, who is asked, how the questions are phrased etc. I have seen numbers ranging from 20% to 50% on this issue. The main observation is that this is not a small fringe, but hundreds of thousands of Muslims. And the even larger problem is that these are the Muslims in the institutions, steering the debates and silencing dissent. The silent majority is irrelevant, as it was in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or Maoist China. The more interesting question is how many Muslims actively oppose the implications of radical Islam. You won't find many.

But as you can obviously read here, it's not the 33% of muslims that Civman claims. while the discrepancy is smaller, it is still there. 71% of 30%= 21%, thus actually about 1/5th of Muslims in the UK. Since my only point was to show example's of how Civman misrepresented or misinterpreted his own sources, i think this clealy shows exactly that.

As said, the exact numbers will vary, and I doubt anyone, including civman, would argue over a few percent. The percentages given in this study come down to 21%, other studies, like this recent one (published in the Guardian, not exactly the beacon of conservatism), show that 39% of Muslims agree that "wives should always obey their husbands".

I'm not ignoring facts and statistics that promote the conservative agenda and that are credible, indeed you'd be forcing me to accept them when you can present them, i take objectivity in high regard.

If you take objectivity in high regard, why speak of "the conservative agenda"? While I am not a fan of putting a label on my views, I never defined myself as conservative, rather as someone who believes strongly in liberal values. I see these values being increasingly challenged, not just by the Muslim demographic but also by those who consider themselves to be on the left (though I prefer to use the term Maajid Nawaz coined, the regressive left).

but neither can you condem me for not having spoken for the concerning numbers that he presented that were right, the world has plenty of problems and i can't tackle them all at once

No, but you could follow your credo of being objective and acknowledge that overall the statistics civman posted show extremely concerning figures, instead of outright discarding the bulk of them and nitpicking over a few percent of the others.

See i'm a humanist, as a humanist i have to root for humans even if i don't always agree, the first priority is to make sure that people don't die in drove's into the mediteranian to the point that we can't get on our beaches because it's full of drowned humans.

You don't need to be a humanist to be against people drowning in the sea. Everybody is against that. But accepting everyone who attempts the dangerous journey over the Mediterranean is not a solution, it only enhances the problem, by giving a greater incentive to further migrants to try this route. If everyone was sent back rigorously, they'd eventually stop. We see this being done to good effect by Spain in the Straight of Gibraltar, for example.


On this sharia business, I can totally understand civman's bemusement over individuals who consider themselves to be on the left, yet are so wound up in their identity politics thinking and desperate to supposedly "defend Muslims" that they make apologies for sharia. The most barbaric and oppressive judicial system that man has ever created. But who cares if girls have their genitals cut off, if women must obey men, or if homosexuals or adulterers are stoned to death, right? DuckofFlanders, I admit that the civility of your last response to me came as a pleasent surprise. Unlike others you at least seem open for debate. But on this point, just stop it. Sharia is perhaps the greatest evil of our time, causing tens of millions of people to endure unimaginable pain and suffering every day. This is evil, and if you are a humanist, as you say, you would fight it, as every sane person should do. You have fallen into the trap of apologetics and excuse-making for barbarism, and, judging by your previous response, that is way beneath you.

 

[Senethro]

Two people in this thread are reading Sharia as cutting off of limbs for theft. Everyone else is reading sharia as voluntary religious arbitration that may not go outside the secular laws of the nation.

*shrug*

 

[civman110]

I see these values being increasingly challenged, not just by the Muslim demographic but also by those who consider themselves to be on the left (though I prefer to use the term Maajid Nawaz coined, the regressive left).

They are unknowingly setting the precedent for censorship and a suspension of civil rights. They're just unaware that when the real censorship and suspensions come that it won't be SJW's at the helm, but for now SJW's are the ones doing it so as far as they're concern s'all good.

I really like your posting style by the way. You're able to get your point across effectively in a very polite and civil manner. You clearly have much more patience than I do.

Two people in this thread are reading Sharia as cutting off of limbs for theft. Everyone else is reading sharia as voluntary religious arbitration that may not go outside the secular laws of the nation.

*shrug*

And one of those is a fantasy and the other is how Sharia is actually practiced in the vast majority of the muslim world and is now being imported wholesale into the West with no oversight or concern for civil liberties and the safety of its citizens.

We know this because we can look at the laws in muslim countries, muslim opinion polls, and the increasingly frequent number of terrorist attacks in the West perpetrated by muslims. Only the willfully ignorant and deluded do not see it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

DuckofFlanders, I admit that the civility of your last response to me came as a pleasent surprise. Unlike others you at least seem open for debate.

He just hasn't had enough experience of you yet to have recognized that debate is not what you are interested in. Lay down a couple more of you wall o' text full of your usual "I am the great Funky, purveyor of the truth" nonsense and I'm sure he'll catch on.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I really like your posting style by the way. You're able to get your point across effectively in a very polite and civil manner. You clearly have much more patience than I do.

This is standard alt right internet behavior...travel in packs and admire each other. You should see the glowing strokes poured out over nonsense on Trump's Facebook page or in the Breitbart comments sections.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Two people in this thread are reading Sharia as cutting off of limbs for theft. Everyone else is reading sharia as voluntary religious arbitration that may not go outside the secular laws of the nation.

*shrug*

Bingo.

 

[civman110]

This is standard alt right internet behavior...travel in packs and admire each other.

You have to really let the ideology age like an old cheese to get that kind of quality irony. Yes it stinks, but it sure is rich.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You have to really let the ideology age like an old cheese to get that kind of quality irony. Yes it stinks, but it sure is rich.

Despite the new name, the alt right is indeed the same stench of white supremacy that it always was.

 

[Princeps]

The silent majority is irrelevant, as it was in Nazi Germany, Communist Russia or Maoist China. The more interesting question is how many Muslims actively oppose the implications of radical Islam. You won't find many.

Umm. The battle against ISIS and other terrorists organizations is primarily fought by Muslims. The US Muslim community cooperation has done more to combat terrorism than any other anti-terrorist project in the US.

You don't like Muslims because they don't agree with you about their faith. That's why you hate them. That's why you can't comprehend that there might be something more to those poll numbers than you presume.

As said, the exact numbers will vary, and I doubt anyone, including civman, would argue over a few percent. The percentages given in this study come down to 21%, other studies, like this recent one (published in the Guardian, not exactly the beacon of conservatism), show that 39% of Muslims agree that "wives should always obey their husbands".

Well, the poll you are using has been criticized for focusing on the poorest and most deprived Muslim neighborhoods, so it really should described as "what poor Muslims think". It's not surprising that they have very conservative views. I suppose you ever read the critics of the methodologies of these polls, do you?

 

[civman110]

Despite the new name, the alt right is indeed the same stench of white supremacy that it always was.

The alt right is very far from monolithic, but one thing they do have in common is they all despise SJWs. Chalk that up however you like I really couldn't care less.

Alt right is pretty much synonymous with "right-wing, but not a Republican" it's a very broad spectrum.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Currently there are ~2,7 million Muslims living in the UK, hence 30% are almost 900,000 who are in favor of sharia. The exact numbers however will vary

Ok Funky this is actually going to take the long approach but ill GRANT you it.

As i said before, you know that i specificly tackle'd Civman's pronedness to factual errors even with his own sources. To that very specfic discussion different statistics that you would now provide arn't really relevant. BUT.

I do not want to be intellectually unfair in reading youre intention with youre concerns, i do think i have the capacity to udnerstand what you really want to say. Or if i may try: I think you consider for yourself that you thought the issue with immigration trough well enough, and overall you came to the conclusion that it is a significant concern that needs to be talked about. You feel there is need for action rather than to maintain the current state of affairs, and you will passionatly vouch for it. In that sense, i suspect that for you the "cause justifies the means" atleast when it comes to an factual error in numbers here and there relating to this issue. I think that for you the concerning numbers are out there, but that i am ignoring the actual important numbers and concentrating on the faulty numbers that youre not really concerned about (because the ends concern you more) and that this leaves you somewhat frustrated in a general sense of not being heared by me or political opponents, as if this method of scrutiny would be "looking besides the real point".

Here is a first tip in the art of discussion. Stick to big guns, for they will hit types like me harder. You don't need many small guns, 1 big gun can be really enough to wreck the place. This is deffinatly a reflection to Civman's long list easily scrutinised points, he litterally bathes himself in weakness. If really he had but 1 good article by which we would come to poop our pants for what might happen, or even which might resonate always stronger the more it's repeated even if it's starts small, he could really end big with it.

ill give you a practicle example that works from all ideological sides. A month ago Reuters had this in the news: Audit reveales US army fudged 6.5 trillion dollars 1 year.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-audit-army-idUSKCN10U1IG

About 3x the actual federal budget to be exact, can't make this stuff up. Now this is off topic but meant to serve as an example of a "big gun" argument. This argument says "The US army is plain wrong to fudge it's accounts or even by that rediculous amount and this matter should be taken very seriously, the US army should keep it's books correct like everyone else must". This is the kind of argument which you just could keep repeating now in the USA and just gain terrain, no wonder why practicly every US news agency kept it's mouth shut about it in this ellection season. For a pacifist this is sheer gold. The point about this is that it's a clear win to repeat this single argument, youre always gonna get more and more people behind you regardless of the arguments thrown at you. The art is to stick to youre argument and counter any arguments that are irrelevant to the specific point as such. People who defend the army here will tell you all sort of stuff like the millitary' function of employer or matters of national security etc. but they are indeed irrelevant to the point that as any govrment institution or Nato army they should simply keep their books right regardless. you will defeat many who don't see trough youre big gun intention and home in more towards victory. It's so easy because there is a clear breach of norms and laws, it doesn't matter how bad it is if youre specific point is that it shouldn't happen regardless becaus thats correct.

Now what you need is a big gun too. Consider that it just won't serve youre cause to throw around with small potatos or irrelevant matter.
Give us reason to concern, let us shake in our booths. If need be give me 1 statistic to build youre argument on, the single strong researched statistic that trully strikes you for need of concern. Choose wisely. I for one am occupied with my own research in matters, i'm seaching the forrest for the best tree's, the story's that really learn you the big guns, it takes up my time, for the matters that i'm as a lefty am concerned about.

Why am i not so willing to to make myself concerned. Why am i not doing research in it myself, do i have reason to be less worried?

I think we do. The reason si because in quite relative terms we can pretty easily smack the Muslims around if theoreticly need be and have done so succesfully for century's, it's not really my thing but i got to say that for ex. the Muslim world is significantly lacking in navy. Invasion from outside by millitary means seems ludicrous with the sheer amount of means that Nato has to "ultimalty do something about it". And i'm not even starting about the nukes really.

Threat from inside maybe? This is one that has many facets of discussion for ex..
- actual amounts: there are not really that mcuh muslims in Europe atleast if they would ever need to out number us.
- reproduction: can be discussed quite deeply, Europe's aging poppulation, low fertillity, high fertillety among muslims, part interbreeding, part assimilation even into upper class, eventual multiculturalism and part change of European identity. In practicle terms i don't think it will hurt me, things will be different but as a hyperactive progressive i quite love that really, i'm also very interrested in people of different backgrounds by nature practicly and extremely tollerant by Dutch standards.
- %of fanatacism, well with all those figure's slapped aroudn one's head from various country's it becomes a bit of a puddle

There just aint enough of them yet to be worried, they arn't running armed in the streets, we could whoop them easily if really need be. I mean thats how "imminent" i consider the danger, and i don't think that situation will really change much in the forseeable time. We will have issue's though, even very unfortunate ones like terrorism, we had enough of that in the past with groups like the IRA, ETA, red brigade's, problematic but not putting society to a halt.

I hope that by this way i can reflect to you how i have positioned myself in this debate ... for now. You can brig me arguments, but plz bring me youre strongest gun that really should get me concerned, i don't want to wade trough the trash to much.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Alt right is pretty much synonymous with "right-wing, but not a Republican" it's a very broad spectrum.

Sure they are. Some hate blacks. Some hate Muslims. Some hate women. Some hate "*******s." Some hate Hispanics. Some hate educated people. Most hate some combination of groups. Some hate literally everyone. They are very diverse haters. And the only thing they have against traditional Republicans is that the GOP has been promising, openly or quietly, to take action on their hatreds for decades and has never come through for them.

 

[civman110]

Sure they are. Some hate blacks. Some hate Muslims. Some hate women. Some hate "*******s." Some hate Hispanics. Some hate educated people. Most hate some combination of groups. Some hate literally everyone. They are very diverse haters. And the only thing they have against traditional Republicans is that the GOP has been promising, openly or quietly, to take action on their hatreds for decades and has never come through for them.

Some old SJW diatribe.

That old dog howls, but doesn't have any teeth. It's also about to get put down. He's become a burden to himself and others.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Some old SJW diatribe.

That old dog doesn't have any teeth and is about to get put down. He's become a burden to himself and others.

Your particular brand of alt right hatred has never been less than obvious.

 

[civman110]

Your particular brand of alt right hatred has never been less than obvious.

There's that same old diatribe again.

It's falling on deaf ears. Get used to it.

---

I also wouldn't consider myself alt right, fyi, but if that's what I am to you; whatever man, s'all good.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There's that same old diatribe again.

It's falling on deaf ears. Get used to it.

---

I also wouldn't consider myself alt right, fyi, but if that's what I am to you; whatever man, s'all good.

LOL...the alt right always wants to claim they are "just good moderate joes" that only hate everyone they encounter because they are "treated so unfairly."

By the way, I've known you were totally deaf to criticism, reason, and any and all other forms of disagreement from the first day you showed up here...but your deafness doesn't invalidate the criticism, or the arguments.

Now, quick, off to your little alt right homies and bring one back here to stick up for you.

 

[civman110]

LOL...the alt right always wants to claim they are "just good moderate joes" that only hate everyone they encounter because they are "treated so unfairly."

By the way, I've known you were totally deaf to criticism, reason, and any and all other forms of disagreement from the first day you showed up here...but your deafness doesn't invalidate the criticism, or the arguments.

Now, quick, off to your little alt right homies and bring one back here to stick up for you.

I'm not a moderate.

Moderation cannot solve today's problems anymore. I used to be a moderate, but that's no longer an option thanks to the left. Congrats. Now you understand my bitterness and despise for the left. Over the last year I have reluctantly come to accept the way things are going to have to go.