Well, some people said that a crap-waving contest to see which side is more violent is not a good thing. The OP made no claims of wanting to quantify the violence, merely to remind people that the far-right is not more peace-loving.

Why did you not include a third story about a cat being stuck up a tree then? After all if you're not interested in quantifying anything, a 33% successful OP is no worse than a 50% successful one (although obviously I think it was actually 0%, but since you've seemingly agreed on 50%...).
 
Evidence has already been provided. We have the guy who doesn't bother to find out anything for himself and the guy who doesn't read both in this thread. I guess all took the bait.

Again. It's your thread. Why should I go looking for things to back up your OP if you can't be bothered to provide them yourself? You act like this is somehow unreasonable of me. You also act like asking for evidence is a bad thing too. Very strange.

It's alright, snowflake, everyone understands how you roll.

Did I kill your family or something? Stop acting like a berk and back up your OP. If not, don't blame the lack of thoughtful discussion in your "meaningful" thread on other people.

No, I simply said everyone knows how you roll. And, true enough, it seems they do.

Why did you not include a third story about a cat being stuck up a tree then? After all if you're not interested in quantifying anything, a 33% successful OP is no worse than a 50% successful one (although obviously I think it was actually 0%, but since you've seemingly agreed on 50%...).

Moderator Action: If the two of you hope to escape this thread without infractions, I would suggest cooling it on the charged language and focus on the subject in a respectful way.
 
Do you think you might possibly being overly charitable due to your ideological sympathies with the OP?

The fact that you are still harping on about this after I provided the information you were ostensibly requesting demonstrates what your real intent here has been all along.

An article on far right terrorism in the UK:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...sures-far-right-white-movements-a7797296.html

I actually would argue that acts of terrorism carried out by reactionary Muslims also should be viewed as far-right violence.
 
The fact that you are still harping on about this after I provided the information you were ostensibly requesting demonstrates what your real intent here has been all along.

"My intent". Wow you do have a suspicious mind don't you. As far as I recall, the only evidence you've provided me is that one of the attacks was motivated by "Islamaphobia", something which I didn't really have any doubt of anyway (and would put money on being the case for the other one too). What you didn't provide is any sort of reasoning as to why this is synonymous with "far right". Which is something I've clearly stated in at least two posts so far. The fact that you're still harping on about this after I've already done so demonstrates what your real intent here has been all along. Or something.

But as I said, if your world view is such that "wanting to kill Muslims" and "being far right" are 100% overlapping circles on a Venn diagram then I can understand your bemusement and confusion.
 
I actually would argue that acts of terrorism carried out by reactionary Muslims also should be viewed as far-right violence.
Then you are being blatantly disingenuous. 73% of Muslims voted Labor in the UK.

It seems like you're attempting to redefine "left" and "right" to mean "non-criminal" and "criminal". There is no statistical basis for this at all. In America, for example, criminals are overwhelmingly more likely to identify as "liberal" than "conservative".
 
Then you are being blatantly disingenuous. 73% of Muslims voted Labor in the UK.

Can you explain why you feel this disproves what I said?

There is no statistical basis for this at all.

That argument wouldn't rely on statistics.


Garbage source, garbage study, garbage conclusion

What you didn't provide is any sort of reasoning as to why this is synonymous with "far right".

If you don't understand why I consider Islamophobia to be linked to the far right then please stop bothering me until you've acquired half a clue.
 
Last edited:
Can you explain why you feel this disproves what I said?
Why would someone in the "far right" vote Labour? "Far right" is a description relative to the political climate of a country. I don't think you will find any support for ISIS or Islamic terror in Britain's far right. So why don't you explain why you think Islamic terror should be viewed as "far right" political violence?

That argument wouldn't rely on statistics.

Garbage source, garbage study, garbage conclusion
How is that garbage? Even just using common sense we can see that Democrats are more likely to be criminals than republicans. Take Blacks and Hispanics. Both groups have disproportionately high crime rates and also vote disproportionately for Democrat candidates, so it would stand to reason that Democrats as a whole have a higher crime rate than Republicans.

Here's more evidence: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/jail-survey-7-in-10-felons-register-as-democrats/article/2541412
 
Why would someone in the "far right" vote Labour?

Maybe one day you will attain the numeracy to realize that 71% is not the same as 100%. Clearly that day is not here yet.

How is that garbage?

I'm not going to wade through that garbage unless you pay me.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...erwhelming-majority-violent-criminals-democr/

"Ex-felons’ partisan affiliations vary across states, and we don’t think there’s enough evidence to claim that the national ex-felon population is ‘overwhelmingly Democratic,’ at least in terms of party registration," the authors told us.
 
I do see some similarities between Salafists and American conservatives (I don't know much about British conservatism, or any other country's): A rejection of secularism. A rejection of pluralism. A glorification of a past era. The particulars are completely different, of course - Salafists and American evangelicals don't just want religion to govern, they want their religion to govern.
 
But as I said, if your world view is such that "wanting to kill Muslims" and "being far right" are 100% overlapping circles on a Venn diagram then I can understand your bemusement and confusion.

Just as much as "wanting to give the people the means of production" and "being far left" are 100% overlapping circles in a Venn diagram.
 
If you don't understand why I consider Islamophobia to be linked to the far right then please stop bothering me until you've acquired half a clue.

Let me guess... is it because only the people you disagree with politically can be guilty of bad things? It's linked to the far-right because you define racism itself as a far-right mindset, so that's just how it is to you. And you probably link being racist with being against immigration? And link being against immigration with voting for Brexit? And link voting for Brexit with... oh... working class traditional Labour areas... hmm. Well I guess they were always just right wingers in disguise right? Or... maybe you can be left wing and hate Muslims perhaps?
 
Just as much as "wanting to give the people the means of production" and "being far left" are 100% overlapping circles in a Venn diagram.

So you're equating an explicitly political/economic stance and racial/religious hatred? These are both equally part of the political spectrum in your eyes?
 
The desire to eliminate people who are different has always been a central plank of far-right ideology. It's not necessarily about race or religion, but guess what, those are the most prominent differentiators of our time and have been for some time.
 
The desire to eliminate people who are different has always been a central plank of...
every violent ideology.
 
every violent ideology.

As a means to an end or as something very close, if not identical, to an end in itself? There's obviously a distinction.
 
As a means to an end or as something very close, if not identical, to an end in itself? There's obviously a distinction.
I'm sure the millions killed by Pol Por, Mao or Stalin really cared about that distinction.
 
Which ideology professes violence as an end itself?

Fascism and Nazism certainly do.

I'm sure the millions killed by Pol Por, Mao or Stalin really cared about that distinction.

Indeed, this is one of the rare moments when I agree with you, luiz.
 
Top Bottom