• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Many Dead in New Zealand Mosque Shooting

Yes. There is no logic in his "manifesto." But, we know who he is from his actions. He's an immigrant hating, anti-Islamic White terrorist. So...that spells Right Wing, for the most part.

Is he really an "anti-Islamic White terrorist", or some kind of spree killer?

Remember, I am not denying anything he may be, what I am saying is that we simply do not have enough reliable information to confirm anything. And myself, when confronted with a lack of clear evidence I tend towards the middle ground of remaining neutral until more facts are available.

And here is a question, were Harris and Klebold "White Supremacists"? We know that they had a web site on AOL where they posted many threats towards teachers and students at their school. They created "video diaries" which featured such topics as "hitman for hire". In the diary of Klebold after the attack, he talked about if they were able to get away from the school they would go to Denver Airport, hijack a plane and crash it into New York City (this was in 1997).

And are you aware of their writings? Harris gave what is pretty much a "backwards praise" essay on the Nazis. He spends quite a bit of time in it first covering in great detail arenas full of dead bodies killed by the Nazis. Then talks in detail about the great plans that Hitler had once he had conquered Europe. Klebold wrote a similar essay on Charles Manson, going into great detail about the various murders he group committed. And towards the end had the following comment:

"The law of America and the state of California stopped Manson from committing more murders, and mostly put an end to his family."

These essays and more can be used to show that both possibly had similar such feelings. Because both wrote strangely detailed essays about 2 of the most famous Genocidal Racists in the 20th century. But while they may indeed (and very probably did) have such beliefs, their actual murder spree seems to have nothing to do with race as much as the insane desire to kill as many as possible.

And such is "Right Wing", only because that is what you say it is. Tell me, is the era of Jim Crowe and the KKK "Right Wing"? Because that was almost entirely the creation of the Democratic Party. Racism and hatred knows no political boundaries, and any attempt to place them on it is only a failure and reflection of that person's own hatred and bias.

And I wonder, am I the only one who is finding the extreme irony of so many trying to claim that this immigrant is "anti-immigrant"? That is like calling a Rabbi "Anti-Semitic".
 
Conservatives defend the concept of right-wing whitehood from people like you who try to connect it to terrorism with gross generalizations.

Uh-huh.

Then I guess the KKK and, Bull Connors, George Wallace, and the rest is "Left-wing whitehood"?

Actually quite literally, since the KKK for a century was the "Militant Arm" of the Democratic party, and the original "Boys in the Hood".

You see, this is the problem you risk when you try to shoehorn things like hate together with politics.
 
The liberals also have not pushed yet for an immigration ban of people coming to the US who may have political beliefs hostile to Muslims or to the immigration of non-whites in general.

Yea, except when they did just that apparently. Like in 2015 when President Obama directed SBP to target and deny entry to any "who have been present in Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, at any time on or after March 1, 2011".

That is the lovely thing about selective memory, and trying to target people politically. It is far to easy to find such things that both parties had done.
 
And right-wing whites have consistently condemned right-wing terrorists


Again, you dance between the group of right-wing conservatives in general and the group of white supremacist. I never implied that in general right-wing conservatives do not consistently condemn right-wing terrorists. I am talking about the white supremacists who do not do it. And notice how even in this latest example of right-wing, white-supremacy terrorism, there are people who try to argue that the terrorist in this case is a liberal!

Trump is one person who's not even part of the right-wing group anyway. He certainly doesn't speak for all. There are plenty of Muslim leaders who praise and support ISIS and other terrorists.

Trump does not speak for all white supremacists but his remarks are applauded by all white supremacists. So, do not try to distance yourself from Trump's remarks. I never said that there are not plenty of Muslim leaders who praise ISIS. I said that one cannot use this to blame the Muslims in general. The fact that the vast majority of ISIS targets are actually other Muslims should give you a clue about the actual support that ISIS has among other Muslims

Conservatives defend the concept of right-wing whitehood from people like you who try to connect it to terrorism with gross generalizations.

Conservatives do not try to defend the concept of right-wing whitehood. They just try to defend their wages from foreign immigrants and demagogues and people with racist ideologies try to exploit this sentiment. You may wish that conservatives want to defend whitehood, but you are living a fantasy. It is obvious that you continue making generalizations- this time about the conservatives in general. White supremacy is a fringe ideology within the conservative movement just like Islam has its fringe ideology within itself. When the economy was improving everybody's life, conservatives and liberals found common ground and legalized millions of non-white illegal immigrants during Reagan's presidency.
 
No, they've just restricted free speech, access to education, resorted to violent protests when they're candidate doesn't get elected, and a sleuth of other things against conservatives who happen to be against immigration.

Also, for every Muslim that comes to the West (lots), there are less of us white people who are able to immigrate too. So yes, by pushing for a mass immigration of Muslims you're decreasing White immigration. [/QUOTE]

First of all, I am not sure if you are in Europe or in the US. Freedom of hate speech in the US has not been violated. In Europe things are different because they have some recent nasty memories from such racists ideologies there. But of course, such restriction applies to radical speech from the opposite side. So, do not try to play the persecuted victim with respect to free speech. Also, after all these protests and violence, the data still show that it is the extremists of the right who kill more than any leftist radical.

On top of this, do you know who is the most vulnerable person in NY (a progressive supposedly state) with respect to hate crime?
We have data to see that per capita, Muslims receive personally more hate attacks than even Jews right now! I have posted the links in other posts, and if you challenge me, I will be happy to provide them here too. We have also US court decisions against states for violating the voting right of blacks and not of whites. So in light of all the above, your tears about the white victimhood do not touch me.

As for your white and Muslim immigration, you do not make sense. Again, I was pointing at the fact that the left has not pushed yet for any screening at the borders of US immigrant candidates based on their political ideology. It is therefore obvious that some people want the law to make exceptions regarding specific ideologies only (Muslim religion). The law should be the same for every ideology, including religion! Now, what happens as a result of having a law which treats every believer the same is immaterial. If today there are more Muslims in England and as a result more English Muslims get visas to the US is not something that should be controlled by the US immigration law. If you do want to have such discrimination based on US values that you consider them to be incompatible with the ideology of Islam, then I will say that should do the same with every religion since it is incompatible to the values of modern secular states. And of course, we should do it with the white supremacy ideology which is certainly incompatible to the value of racial equality which is protected by the US Constitution. And we should do the same with all those who try to argue (again) that they simply believe in being separate from other races whose rights are respected. The courts have decided that there is no such thing as separate but equal.
 
Believe me, nobody is missing your protection. Besides, nobody is trying to take away Muslim rights. You're conflating different ideas again. I'm merely saying we need to start calling out Islam on its dangerous and violent beliefs (the same which was done to Christianity, which lead to countless reforms). Doing so does not impede on the rights of Muslims, in fact given what this has done to Christianity and Judaism it is a very good bet this would be good for the entire Islamic faith in the long run. But we all know Dems don't give a damn about that either. Heaven forbid the Muslims learn to think for themselves instead of staying marginalized so they keep voting left.

I already gave you examples of how Muslim rights are targeted in the US. It is you who conflates things. I have no problem with calling out the extremist ideologies within Islam. I have a problem with the idea that we should call out Islam in general because terrorist today are disproportionately affected by Islamist extremist ideologies.

It is a poor argument which forgets that terrorism a few decades ago was actually disproportionately affected by extremism on the left (mostly in Europe) and from the right and left in Latin America. And terrorism a few decades ago was disproportionately affected by nationalism. The start of terrorist activities against Israeli targets came from the SECULAR PLO. In Vietnam, terrorism came from non-Muslim Asians setting bombs in bars in Saigon. In North Ireland, terrorism came from nationalist Christians.

If one wants to use the argument of disproportionality to go after certain beliefs, then at least in the US, the extreme right is disproportionately represented in domestic terrorism considering that relatively few believers of white supremacy in the US are capable of matching much bigger demographic groups with respect to terrorist attacks.

We have data which I posted in other threads showing that domestic right wing terrorism rivals any other form of domestic terrorism, including domestic Islamic terrorism. On top of the above, the same argument of disproportionality of certain groups in the crime statistics can be used as an excuse to go after almost everybody, as for example, males who are massively overrepresented in crime and terrorism. Do you find anything particularly wicked within the male population?


.
 
It is a poor argument which forgets that terrorism a few decades ago was actually disproportionately affected by extremism on the left (mostly in Europe) and from the right and left in Latin America. And terrorism a few decades ago was disproportionately affected by nationalism.

Terrorism generally rises regardless of the actual stance on the political spectrum. However, it tends to be seen mostly in individuals who are on the fringes, following the extreme sides politically.

And in the US we have seen both Right and Left Wing terrorism. The Anarchists after the turn of the century. The Weathermen, SLA and other groups in the 60's and 70's. Ted Kaczynski from 1978-1995. Tim McVeigh and Eric Rudolph in the 1990's. The pattern that has to be looked at is not the actual politics of the individuals, but the fact that they were extremists.

But people who want to push a political agenda really do not care about facts.
 
ISIS is an established terrorist organization, which is responsible for tens of thousands of murders in the last several years. Who are you comparing to ISIS? White people with different beliefs from your own?

White supremacists preaching hatred of Muslims.
 
White supremacists preaching hatred of Muslims.

I seem to remember the way in which the left dismissed Islamic terrorists who 'weren't affiliated with ISIS', even if those people pledged allegiance to ISIS, possessed ISIS paraphernalia, etc.

Now you want to blame an entire ideology, the definition of which is largely subjective. For example, Donald Trump is a white supremacist according to many people on the left, whose closest associates are Jewish people, which is quite an odd thing for a white supremacist to do. I think we're heading in a dangerous direction when we allow the left to both irresponsibly and erroneously classify any white person they don't like as a white supremacist, and then tie that entire murky ideology in with terrorism in order to effectively bar people from legitimacy, and freedom.
 
I seem to remember the way in which the left dismissed Islamic terrorists who 'weren't affiliated with ISIS', even if those people pledged allegiance to ISIS, possessed ISIS paraphernalia, etc.

Now you want to blame an entire ideology, the definition of which is largely subjective. For example, Donald Trump is a white supremacist according to many people on the left, whose closest associates are Jewish people, which is quite an odd thing for a white supremacist to do. I think we're heading in a dangerous direction when we allow the left to both irresponsibly and erroneously classify any white person they don't like as a white supremacist, and then tie that entire murky ideology in with terrorism in order to effectively bar people from legitimacy, and freedom.

People who intentionally fan the flames of hatred share the in the moral, if not legal, responsibility for acts of hatred inspired by their ideology. They should be barred from social and cultural legitimacy and can and should be denied certain freedoms of expression.
 
Not all white supremacist are mass murdering terrorists. Most are not. Therefore, like with Muslim terrorists and just like not all illegal migrants are criminals, it is completely irrelevant to anything and certainly no reason to change any laws. At least nearly every Democrat agrees with that. Certainly not all gun owners or owners of AR15s are murderers - so therefore there is no reason to change any laws.

Unless EVERYONE is a group is a terrorist or criminal poising danger, then there is no reason for any concern.
 
People who intentionally fan the flames of hatred share the in the moral, if not legal, responsibility for acts of hatred inspired by their ideology. They should be barred from social and cultural legitimacy and can and should be denied certain freedoms of expression.

OK, so you only believe that people who agree with you should have a voice, and that all others should be barred.

Sorry, that is not how things work, unless you live in a Socialist nation. Thankfully, most of us believe in "Freedom of Speech", and even support the right of others that we do not agree with.

Sorry if I laugh and consider you full of coprolite. Somebody who claims to be a "Libertarian" believing that the rights and liberties of those they do not agree with should be suppressed.

You are not a Libertarian. You are an Authoritarian who only pretends to be a Libertarian.
 
OK, so you only believe that people who agree with you should have a voice, and that all others should be barred.

Sorry, that is not how things work, unless you live in a Socialist nation. Thankfully, most of us believe in "Freedom of Speech", and even support the right of others that we do not agree with.

Sorry if I laugh and consider you full of coprolite. Somebody who claims to be a "Libertarian" believing that the rights and liberties of those they do not agree with should be suppressed.

You are not a Libertarian. You are an Authoritarian who only pretends to be a Libertarian.

I do not believe that only people who agree with me should have a voice. I believe that people who promote hatred of a particular group should be labelled as the bigots that they are and that all private institutions should boycott their message. Hate speech can and should be challenged and suppressed by cultural and social means. I do not believe it should be suppressed by the government.
 
I do not believe that only people who agree with me should have a voice. I believe that people who promote hatred of a particular group should be labelled as the bigots that they are and that all private institutions should boycott their message. Hate speech can and should be challenged and suppressed by cultural and social means. I do not believe it should be suppressed by the government.

And how exactly do you have this "should be denied certain freedoms of expression", unless by the Government?

Once again, what is a "bigot"? Somebody that you do not agree with? What is "Hate Speech"? Only what you think it is?

That is not how it works, none of it. In this I am actually rather interestingly on the side of groups like the ACLU. Which has supported the rights of Klukkers in having their rallies and marches. I hate such groups, and abhor everything they stand for. But also believe that nobody has the right to prevent them from having their voices heard.

And sorry, "suppressed"? No, that I am against 100%. We already see far to much of that kind of nonsense with ANTIFA. At this time, that is the group I see is the most against the 1st Amendment and rights and freedoms.
 
And how exactly do you have this "should be denied certain freedoms of expression", unless by the Government?

Once again, what is a "bigot"? Somebody that you do not agree with? What is "Hate Speech"? Only what you think it is?

I was referring to white supremacists being barred from giving talks at private institutions who host other political speakers and platforms like facebook and twitter suspending their accounts. This is not government suppression, and I fully approve of this behavior. And hate speech is any speech that espouses violence or dehumanization against a group of people based solely on their inclusion in that group.

That is not how it works, none of it. In this I am actually rather interestingly on the side of groups like the ACLU. Which has supported the rights of Klukkers in having their rallies and marches. I hate such groups, and abhor everything they stand for. But also believe that nobody has the right to prevent them from having their voices heard.

So long as it is public property, I agree. And those with a counter message can and should gather in the same place and let their voices ring out at the same time, and drown out the voices of the haters, if they can. So long as no laws are broken, I approve of both of these scenarios.

And sorry, "suppressed"? No, that I am against 100%. We already see far to much of that kind of nonsense with ANTIFA. At this time, that is the group I see is the most against the 1st Amendment and rights and freedoms.

I am 100% in favor of any private suppression that doesn't violate the law and 1st amendment rights. If ANTIFA breaks the law, then they should be punished accordingly. If all they are doing is declaring their opposition to a message, then more power to them.
 
I was referring to white supremacists being barred from giving talks at private institutions who host other political speakers and platforms like facebook and twitter suspending their accounts.

And would you also support private institutions doing the exact same thing in regards to your beliefs? Do you think Facebook and DP have the right to start a policy that suppresses anybody with "leftist" views? That if every place decided that no leftist organizations should be able to rent meetings halls from them?

What about colleges and universities? Who are quite often public institutions but take government money? Or even better, State Colleges and Universities, like UCLA? Do they have such a right, even though they are state institutions?

I am finding it very curious that a "Libertarian" is telling somebody who is a "Conservative" that rights should be suppressed, and I am fighting against it. Of course, I have long considered a great many who claim to be "Libertarians" to be quite insane, so it really does not surprise me.

But let's take it further. How about groups like the Nation of Islam, Black Hebrew Israelites, the New Black Panther Party, or La Raza? Should they also have such treatment? Should they and all references to them be barred from Facebook and Twitter?
 
And would you also support private institutions doing the exact same thing in regards to your beliefs? Do you think Facebook and DP have the right to start a policy that suppresses anybody with "leftist" views? That if every place decided that no leftist organizations should be able to rent meetings halls from them?

What about colleges and universities? Who are quite often public institutions but take government money? Or even better, State Colleges and Universities, like UCLA? Do they have such a right, even though they are state institutions?

Yes, if by "leftist views" you are referring to hate speech common to those on the extreme left. I fully support this.

I am finding it very curious that a "Libertarian" is telling somebody who is a "Conservative" that rights should be suppressed, and I am fighting against it. Of course, I have long considered a great many who claim to be "Libertarians" to be quite insane, so it really does not surprise me.

But let's take it further. How about groups like the Nation of Islam, Black Hebrew Israelites, the New Black Panther Party, or La Raza? Should they also have such treatment? Should they and all references to them be barred from Facebook and Twitter?

If they engage in hate speech, then yes.

Libertarian ideology is not anarchy. Libertarians want society to be well ordered and controlled, they just want to do it themselves rather than hire and trust someone else to do it. Boycotts are libertarian-friendly.
 
Back
Top Bottom