Dilara
Dilara's Forum Posts

It's official: whites dont deserve to livePosted 5 years Ago

Have you heard of the Rotherham rape scandal or the Cologne cover up? Muslims in Europe will get away with anything.
Forums Home > Politics

Convince me on a 3rd party candidatePosted 5 years Ago

Gary Johnson
Forums Home > Politics

Allahu Akbar! Attack in Belgium!Posted 5 years Ago

At 8/8/2016 4:35:41 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/8/2016 2:34:00 AM, Dilara wrote:
At 8/6/2016 7:42:53 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/6/2016 7:40:53 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/6/2016 7:36:07 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/6/2016 3:25:52 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

Nothing major, but two police officers were attacked.

Are these attacks a message that it's time to stop accepting so many refugees without a decent screening process?

Is there any evidence linking these attacks to refugees? From what we've seen so far attacks in Europe have been by people who were already living there or were born there. Some have been immigrants, but not refugees.

The vast majority of them are from Muslims with an immigrant/refugee background. Hardly any Europeans with ancestry in Europe are Muslim.

Background, yes, but many of them were born in Europe, some have been Europeans who converted but none have been Syrian or Iraqi refugees.

The Paris attackers were form Belgium but went to Syria to train than came back to Europe.

And I believe they also left for Europe via north africa to avoid detection
They came on boats via the Mediterranean.
Forums Home > Politics

Allahu Akbar! Attack in Belgium!Posted 5 years Ago

At 8/6/2016 7:42:53 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/6/2016 7:40:53 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 8/6/2016 7:36:07 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 8/6/2016 3:25:52 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

Nothing major, but two police officers were attacked.

Are these attacks a message that it's time to stop accepting so many refugees without a decent screening process?

Is there any evidence linking these attacks to refugees? From what we've seen so far attacks in Europe have been by people who were already living there or were born there. Some have been immigrants, but not refugees.

The vast majority of them are from Muslims with an immigrant/refugee background. Hardly any Europeans with ancestry in Europe are Muslim.

Background, yes, but many of them were born in Europe, some have been Europeans who converted but none have been Syrian or Iraqi refugees.

The Paris attackers were form Belgium but went to Syria to train than came back to Europe.
Forums Home > Politics

Allahu Akbar! Attack in Belgium!Posted 5 years Ago

At 8/6/2016 3:25:52 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
https://www.rt.com...

Nothing major, but two police officers were attacked.

Are these attacks a message that it's time to stop accepting so many refugees without a decent screening process?

Yes
Forums Home > Politics

Why I Dislike BLMPosted 5 years Ago

At 7/21/2016 4:07:34 PM, TBR wrote:
Literally that's all we ask for.

1. Catharsis over efficacy ('feels over reals').


Contrast that with BLM. Read speeches from leaders and supporters. It is intensely governed by emotion. Instead of an argument for cause and effect (which any mass movement must consider if it wants to, you know, actually achieve its aims), we see the leadership talking about how 'respectability politics' need to be scrapped because, as it always boils down to, it's 'too hard'. Essentially, optics are abandoned because it requires stringent discipline. But optics are important, they are an incredibly powerful manipulative tactic. Gandhi didn't win because he tapped into the 'power of love', he won because he understood his enemy, he understood optics, and he consistently predicted the actions of his enemy and exploited the optics of every situation to the fullest. The Salt March is a perfect study in this incredibly efficacious tactic: Gandhi basically used the liberal sentiments of the British people to undermine and trap Viceroy Lord Irwin and force concessions. By framing the discussion as 'you can't expect black people to remain dignified in the face of oppression,' or 'we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more,' BLM is essentially saying 'we are abandoning this crucial tool because we lack the discipline to make use of it.'

Yeah i don't know about this. This country never listens to logic and reason. Most people here believe the planet is 6000 years old and that a bearded baby moonwalked across the ocean or what have you. Furthermore the idea that every black lives matter protest turns into a riot is absolutely false. I'd say 90% of protest even the ones I've been to down here on Crenshaw Blvd have been absolutely peaceful.

Emotions are just the only way to speak to people. What's "I have a dream" but a big emotional plea?

But you have seen anger in the black community. Correct. We are mad as hell. And we're not supposed to be? Respectability politics is straight bull because we aren't doing anything that hasn't been done before.

2. Inability to build alliances.

Police corruption is something that many, many people detest. There is a visceral response to the abuse of power by those entrusted with it, and this meant that the line of reforms sought by BLM was fecund for cooperation from the getgo. Unfortunately, if you asked me to design a plan of action which would deliberately alienate and anger every potential ally in this cause, I would shake my hand and stand in awe at the superior craftsmanship of the master bunglers of BLM. This movement started when the libertarian streak on the right, anti-authoritarian to the bone, was feverish with resentment towards oversteps by law enforcement. These were substantial natural allies, with access to white society at large and currency online. Speaking of online, the internet is another bastion of 'fvck the establishment', anti drug war rhetoric. But flash forward a few years, and these natural allies are lined up in steely-eyed opposition to BLM. What happened!?

I don't actually understand this. BLM actually has a ton of support. Just not from the right. You're absolutely right in that they should be natural allies but the right is composed of the sons and daughters of those who opposed the civil rights movement. Yes they hate the goverment but i guarantee you they hate us a lot more. I know i know, "republicans are racist" is an old card but look at Donald Trump and his followers.

But we have a lot of allies, within other racial communites and the gay community. I'm sure you know this but two of the founding members of Black lives matter are queer and BLM is very inclusive of gay and trans.
Lets just go over what BLM did wrong:

a. Echo chamber tactics.
By brushing off criticism, relying on borderline censorious (sometimes outright) tactics, and refusing to engage with opposing views honestly, BLM incited a visceral rejection among the suburbanite 'free thinker' demographic which is so central to these communities. This not only lost them the support of this group, it also lost them intellectual legitimacy. At this point, BLM is seen as cultish and unwilling to defend its points in open debate. The discrediting buzzwords which leftists in general have relied on to discredit opposition are swiftly losing whatever potency remains to them, and their cowardice when it comes to open debate is crippling them. They are in full-blown preaching to the choir mode.

I've seen members of BLM of Fox news literally all the time. Would you like some links?

b. Know your audience.
You just said we shouldnt preach to the choir and now this? Why wouldn't we use big national stages like the Super Bowl or the grammys to bring awareness to our cause? If we only did it at the BET awards wouldn't that be preaching to the choir? I honestly don't understand.

There needs to be separation between which sorts of language, both literal and artistic, are used 'in-house', and what is used to communicate with 'normies'.
please elaborate.

c. Know your enemy
The Bernie Sanders thing. What. The. Fvck. This is the first most stupid thing that I've ever seen in ploitics. To those who weren't allied by default, it sent a clear message: no matter how much you throw your support behind us, we will never really consider you allies. We will call you racist, no matter how much you support us. To those who already support BLM among the upper crust left, and don't have to (mostly these people are affluent and powerful and don't have skin in the game) this was a direct slap in the face.
Actually i agree. That was actually a very controversial move within the BLM community.

d. STOP LYING
Stop lying about the details of cop shootings to make them look more sympathetic. The boy who cried wolf is in full effect. Stop using Michael Brown as a poster boy, he's terrible for that purpose. I will never understand why 'Michael Brown' is a more common battle cry than 'Tamir Rice'. Because when you compare a huge young man who assaulted a convenience store owner and stole on camera, and then is alleged to have rushed a cop, to a young boy who there is video footage of being shot in a ridiculously improper manner (basically murdered through gross incompetence), the rallying point should be crystal clear. Michael Brown wasn't an innocent angel, he was a criminal who didn't deserve to be shot.

He is hardly the only person who's name we rally behind. But for every person there's also some victim blaming that happens. Tamir rice shouldn't have had a toy gun. John Crawford shouldn't have had a toy gun. Even though he was in an open carry state. Sean bell shouldnt't have been drunk. I bought up Philando castiles name on this site and a member called him a thug because he had minor traffic violations

Stop lying about statistics. And repudiate those who do. Use per capita numbers when making apples to apples comparisons. I've seen, on the libertarian right, people being called out by peers when they make a sympathetic argument using bad math. When those same people see those aligned with BLM using embarrassingly bad math with no censure, they see BLM as moronic at best and dishonest at worst.

Dude yet again per capita numbers are skewed when it's a fact that black people are disproportionately targeted by the police so of course we look more violent. Even if your numbers are correct, wouldnt you look into the other factors that lead to crime or do you believe dark skin makes you more prone to criminal acts?

Thanks for hitting the points so others don't have to.

You don't like BLM either?
Forums Home > Politics

Why I Dislike BLMPosted 5 years Ago



Contrast that with BLM. Read speeches from leaders and supporters. It is intensely governed by emotion. Instead of an argument for cause and effect (which any mass movement must consider if it wants to, you know, actually achieve its aims), we see the leadership talking about how 'respectability politics' need to be scrapped because, as it always boils down to, it's 'too hard'. Essentially, optics are abandoned because it requires stringent discipline. But optics are important, they are an incredibly powerful manipulative tactic. Gandhi didn't win because he tapped into the 'power of love', he won because he understood his enemy, he understood optics, and he consistently predicted the actions of his enemy and exploited the optics of every situation to the fullest. The Salt March is a perfect study in this incredibly efficacious tactic: Gandhi basically used the liberal sentiments of the British people to undermine and trap Viceroy Lord Irwin and force concessions. By framing the discussion as 'you can't expect black people to remain dignified in the face of oppression,' or 'we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more,' BLM is essentially saying 'we are abandoning this crucial tool because we lack the discipline to make use of it.'

Yeah i don't know about this. This country never listens to logic and reason. Most people here believe the planet is 6000 years old and that a bearded baby moonwalked across the ocean or what have you. Furthermore the idea that every black lives matter protest turns into a riot is absolutely false. I'd say 90% of protest even the ones I've been to down here on Crenshaw Blvd have been absolutely peaceful.

Emotions are just the only way to speak to people. What's "I have a dream" but a big emotional plea?

But you have seen anger in the black community. Correct. We are mad as hell. And we're not supposed to be? Respectability politics is straight bull because we aren't doing anything that hasn't been done before.

2. Inability to build alliances.

Police corruption is something that many, many people detest. There is a visceral response to the abuse of power by those entrusted with it, and this meant that the line of reforms sought by BLM was fecund for cooperation from the getgo. Unfortunately, if you asked me to design a plan of action which would deliberately alienate and anger every potential ally in this cause, I would shake my hand and stand in awe at the superior craftsmanship of the master bunglers of BLM. This movement started when the libertarian streak on the right, anti-authoritarian to the bone, was feverish with resentment towards oversteps by law enforcement. These were substantial natural allies, with access to white society at large and currency online. Speaking of online, the internet is another bastion of 'fvck the establishment', anti drug war rhetoric. But flash forward a few years, and these natural allies are lined up in steely-eyed opposition to BLM. What happened!?

I don't actually understand this. BLM actually has a ton of support. Just not from the right. You're absolutely right in that they should be natural allies but the right is composed of the sons and daughters of those who opposed the civil rights movement. Yes they hate the goverment but i guarantee you they hate us a lot more. I know i know, "republicans are racist" is an old card but look at Donald Trump and his followers.

But we have a lot of allies, within other racial communites and the gay community. I'm sure you know this but two of the founding members of Black lives matter are queer and BLM is very inclusive of gay and trans.
Lets just go over what BLM did wrong:

a. Echo chamber tactics.
By brushing off criticism, relying on borderline censorious (sometimes outright) tactics, and refusing to engage with opposing views honestly, BLM incited a visceral rejection among the suburbanite 'free thinker' demographic which is so central to these communities. This not only lost them the support of this group, it also lost them intellectual legitimacy. At this point, BLM is seen as cultish and unwilling to defend its points in open debate. The discrediting buzzwords which leftists in general have relied on to discredit opposition are swiftly losing whatever potency remains to them, and their cowardice when it comes to open debate is crippling them. They are in full-blown preaching to the choir mode.

I've seen members of BLM of Fox news literally all the time. Would you like some links?

b. Know your audience.
You just said we shouldnt preach to the choir and now this? Why wouldn't we use big national stages like the Super Bowl or the grammys to bring awareness to our cause? If we only did it at the BET awards wouldn't that be preaching to the choir? I honestly don't understand.

There needs to be separation between which sorts of language, both literal and artistic, are used 'in-house', and what is used to communicate with 'normies'.
please elaborate.

c. Know your enemy
The Bernie Sanders thing. What. The. Fvck. This is the first most stupid thing that I've ever seen in ploitics. To those who weren't allied by default, it sent a clear message: no matter how much you throw your support behind us, we will never really consider you allies. We will call you racist, no matter how much you support us. To those who already support BLM among the upper crust left, and don't have to (mostly these people are affluent and powerful and don't have skin in the game) this was a direct slap in the face.
Actually i agree. That was actually a very controversial move within the BLM community.

d. STOP LYING
Stop lying about the details of cop shootings to make them look more sympathetic. The boy who cried wolf is in full effect. Stop using Michael Brown as a poster boy, he's terrible for that purpose. I will never understand why 'Michael Brown' is a more common battle cry than 'Tamir Rice'. Because when you compare a huge young man who assaulted a convenience store owner and stole on camera, and then is alleged to have rushed a cop, to a young boy who there is video footage of being shot in a ridiculously improper manner (basically murdered through gross incompetence), the rallying point should be crystal clear. Michael Brown wasn't an innocent angel, he was a criminal who didn't deserve to be shot.

He is hardly the only person who's name we rally behind. But for every person there's also some victim blaming that happens. Tamir rice shouldn't have had a toy gun. John Crawford shouldn't have had a toy gun. Even though he was in an open carry state. Sean bell shouldnt't have been drunk. I bought up Philando castiles name on this site and a member called him a thug because he had minor traffic violations

Stop lying about statistics. And repudiate those who do. Use per capita numbers when making apples to apples comparisons. I've seen, on the libertarian right, people being called out by peers when they make a sympathetic argument using bad math. When those same people see those aligned with BLM using embarrassingly bad math with no censure, they see BLM as moronic at best and dishonest at worst.

Dude yet again per capita numbers are skewed when it's a fact that black people are disproportionately targeted by the police so of course we look more violent. Even if your numbers are correct, wouldnt you look into the other factors that lead to crime or do you believe dark skin makes you more prone to criminal acts?

black opeople do commit more crime but not because theyre black.
Forums Home > Politics

Why I Dislike BLMPosted 5 years Ago

At 7/21/2016 5:19:49 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 7/21/2016 4:58:28 AM, Dilara wrote:

They also have to acknowledge the high crime rate in the black community. Black men are more likely to commit violent crimes and therefore more likely to have violent encounters with police. If you want to solve the problem you have to stop denying its root.

I really wish people would stop regurgitating this point. At best, it's far less clear cut than people think it is, and at worse, it's just outright false.

"A geographically-resolved, multi-level Bayesian model is used to analyze the data presented in the U.S. Police-Shooting Database (USPSD) in order to investigate the extent of racial bias in the shooting of American civilians by police officers in recent years. In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI"s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices. County-specific relative risk outcomes of being shot by police are estimated as a function of the interaction of: 1) whether suspects/civilians were armed or unarmed, and 2) the race/ethnicity of the suspects/civilians. The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more. Finally, analysis of police shooting data as a function of county-level predictors suggests that racial bias in police shootings is most likely to emerge in police departments in larger metropolitan counties with low median incomes and a sizable portion of black residents, especially when there is high financial inequality in that county. There is no relationship between county-level racial bias in police shootings and crime rates (even race-specific crime rates), meaning that the racial bias observed in police shootings in this data set is not explainable as a response to local-level crime rates."

http://journals.plos.org...

Black people commit more crime than white people per capita. https://ucr.fbi.gov... These numbers match up perfectly with the National crime victimization survey data, so they are a reflection of crime in America. Because they are more likely top commit crimes they are more likely to have violent altercations with police. How is thus not relevant?
Maybe unarmed black people are more likely to be shot by police because they are more likely to violently resist arrest.
This study shows that there is no racial bias in police shootings. http://www.nber.org...
Forums Home > Politics

Why I Dislike BLMPosted 5 years Ago

.


Contrast that with BLM. Read speeches from leaders and supporters. It is intensely governed by emotion. Instead of an argument for cause and effect (which any mass movement must consider if it wants to, you know, actually achieve its aims), we see the leadership talking about how 'respectability politics' need to be scrapped because, as it always boils down to, it's 'too hard'. Essentially, optics are abandoned because it requires stringent discipline. But optics are important, they are an incredibly powerful manipulative tactic. Gandhi didn't win because he tapped into the 'power of love', he won because he understood his enemy, he understood optics, and he consistently predicted the actions of his enemy and exploited the optics of every situation to the fullest. The Salt March is a perfect study in this incredibly efficacious tactic: Gandhi basically used the liberal sentiments of the British people to undermine and trap Viceroy Lord Irwin and force concessions. By framing the discussion as 'you can't expect black people to remain dignified in the face of oppression,' or 'we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more,' BLM is essentially saying 'we are abandoning this crucial tool because we lack the discipline to make use of it.'

This isn't to say that black people in particular are unable to exercise self-control. This is mostly a generational thing across races, and it's behind a lot of mass movement fails (Occupy Wallstreet being the biggest one). Children are often taught to treat emotions as something sacrosanct instead of tools. But it is useless for the captain and crew of a vessel to discuss plans about where to sail and what to do if none of them are capable of grabbing the wheel and steering a steady course. In some ways, all of the other vices spring from this.

2. Inability to build alliances.

Police corruption is something that many, many people detest. There is a visceral response to the abuse of power by those entrusted with it, and this meant that the line of reforms sought by BLM was fecund for cooperation from the getgo. Unfortunately, if you asked me to design a plan of action which would deliberately alienate and anger every potential ally in this cause, I would shake my hand and stand in awe at the superior craftsmanship of the master bunglers of BLM. This movement started when the libertarian streak on the right, anti-authoritarian to the bone, was feverish with resentment towards oversteps by law enforcement. These were substantial natural allies, with access to white society at large and currency online. Speaking of online, the internet is another bastion of 'fvck the establishment', anti drug war rhetoric. But flash forward a few years, and these natural allies are lined up in steely-eyed opposition to BLM. What happened!?

Two things happened. The first one was BLM, the second was the alt-right and vaguely aligned forces. The former planted the wedge, and the latter drove it home with such sudden, shocking precision that any sort of alliance is nigh impossible at this point.

Lets just go over what BLM did wrong:

a. Echo chamber tactics.
By brushing off criticism, relying on borderline censorious (sometimes outright) tactics, and refusing to engage with opposing views honestly, BLM incited a visceral rejection among the suburbanite 'free thinker' demographic which is so central to these communities. This not only lost them the support of this group, it also lost them intellectual legitimacy. At this point, BLM is seen as cultish and unwilling to defend its points in open debate. The discrediting buzzwords which leftists in general have relied on to discredit opposition are swiftly losing whatever potency remains to them, and their cowardice when it comes to open debate is crippling them. They are in full-blown preaching to the choir mode.

b. Know your audience.
Probably the second most stupid move when it comes to mass movement building that I've ever seen have been those involving high-viewer programming. The two big examples would be Beyonce's Super Bowl Show and Kendrick Lamar's Grammy performance. I'm not saying that these were bad performances; they in some ways tackled different themes in interesting ways, and were founded on real, salient points. But do you know who saw them? Vaguely sympathetic old and middle aged white people with little to know understanding of racial politics or history. I tried to explain it to them, I really did, but what they all came away with was 'wow, black people are really ridiculous in this country, I can see why people are annoyed.' These people, I later noticed, shut down when faced with stories of police brutality. The anti-cop imagery by what are accepted as cultural icons in the black people had on some level convinced them that black people were hostile to police.

There needs to be separation between which sorts of language, both literal and artistic, are used 'in-house', and what is used to communicate with 'normies'.

c. Know your enemy
The Bernie Sanders thing. What. The. Fvck. This is the first most stupid thing that I've ever seen in ploitics. To those who weren't allied by default, it sent a clear message: no matter how much you throw your support behind us, we will never really consider you allies. We will call you racist, no matter how much you support us. To those who already support BLM among the upper crust left, and don't have to (mostly these people are affluent and powerful and don't have skin in the game) this was a direct slap in the face.

d. STOP LYING
Stop lying about the details of cop shootings to make them look more sympathetic. The boy who cried wolf is in full effect. Stop using Michael Brown as a poster boy, he's terrible for that purpose. I will never understand why 'Michael Brown' is a more common battle cry than 'Tamir Rice'. Because when you compare a huge young man who assaulted a convenience store owner and stole on camera, and then is alleged to have rushed a cop, to a young boy who there is video footage of being shot in a ridiculously improper manner (basically murdered through gross incompetence), the rallying point should be crystal clear. Michael Brown wasn't an innocent angel, he was a criminal who didn't deserve to be shot.

Stop lying about statistics. And repudiate those who do. Use per capita numbers when making apples to apples comparisons. I've seen, on the libertarian right, people being called out by peers when they make a sympathetic argument using bad math. When those same people see those aligned with BLM using embarrassingly bad math with no censure, they see BLM as moronic at best and dishonest at worst.

The alt right smelled the blood in the water, and moved in for the kill. They systematically poached people who were natural allies to BLM by presenting themselves as the ratio
I agree. BLM act like immature brats-blocking highway, harassing people disrupting events.They don't use logic and facts they use bully and intimidation tactics. They're more like high school bullies than adults. And if you disagree with them they won't engage with you they'll dox you or yell at you. They think they have the right to disrupt other people's events to spread their message (like the Bernie Sanders rally)

The DOJs own report said that the shooting of Micheal Brown was justified. If BLM wants to be taken seriously they have to stop ignoring that fact and acknowledge that they were wrong about him.

They also have to acknowledge the high crime rate in the black community. Black men are more likely to commit violent crimes and therefore more likely to have violent encounters with police. Uf you want to solve the problem you have to stop denying its root.
Forums Home > Politics

Why do people care about the SJWsPosted 5 years Ago

SJWs disrupt events with speakers they don't like.
SJWs get people fired for jokes. https://en.wikipedia.org...
They get words banned if those words hurt their feelings. http://baylorlariat.com...
They complain about everything. http://www.thecollegefix.com...
This is why we don't like them.
Forums Home > Politics

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.