Like the Tsarnaev brothers, you mean.

This is an example of the twisted thinking that is SJW (hey how bout that, a relevant post)

How do you know what the parents are thinking or planning to teach their child and how do you know what is actually taught behind closed doors? In the home as well as their places of worship? With condoned practices such as Tawriyya (lying, deceiving) and the like, a logical thinker can only come to the conclusion that one cannot trust that society will ever know, until an "event" happens. DUCY?


It is shown that 2nd and 3rd generation of immigrants tend to be a considerable amount more radical overall as well


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ost-fruitful-/


Problems brah

Foldn- the narrative with the pictures was like 'be afraid of doing that or else'.

Yeah, it is a real problem. One that isn't even discussed by most people.

^^ YAY Lib SJWs!!

No worries, nothing to see here, lets continue infighting, allowing certain factions their space to continue plotting cause "racist".



As each day goes by, my yearning to GTFO of this country grows stronger...it is pretty sad

USA#1 gonna be overrun in just a few decades unless calculated and severe pushback is pursued now


Imho

Brave people don't follow cowards. People are free to imagine all the possible bad people they want in the privacy of their own basement. But unless you got reasonable suspicion of particular individuals you can disclose openly, it's probably not social justice.

I am pretty sure those 3 sentences do not belong with each other...but you have been confusing me for years so it could totally be me and is why I make it a habit not to engage you. I will give it a shot tho.

Brave people cannot be brave if they have succomb to the conditioning of a religious ideology from birth and have no path to outside influence that may afford a possible better way of thinking as it relates to a true "good" & peace for all mankind.

This is correct, in theory. But when the bad ideology (that influences a growing number of peeps) is not at all imagined , but in fact a legit reality, we have a totally different story.

No idea on this one for some reason. I think this is where my dumb comes in to play.

people who aren't scary will never truly be scary even if someone says they are scary a lot and in different ways.

I'm not denying there may be problems with integrating some Muslims, or that some of them will be radicalized. The militant strains of political Islam like Wahhabism and Salafism are dangerous and are being exported around the world. But you must see how easily the idea it will spread here can become a boogieman under your bed when the lights are out, not actually much more than a few critters in a creaky house. Western liberal ideas are much better, and when immigrants are welcomed into our societies, few can entirely resist them. Look what a neutred shell Christianity is now compared to its vicious past.

Anyway, what is the saying, keep your enemies close? We can prevent most radical terrorism with intelligence and law enforcement. Despite the obfuscations of the PC media that leads to so much mistrust in the MSM on this issue, be careful that you're not overreacting, lead by the nose by far right fearmongers. There is a heck of lot of Muslim integration and moderatation happening in the West.

Compare the risk of a few attacks slipping by on our soil to that of feeding ISIS a half million of these refugee kids, growing their forces, destabilizing more countries and this spiraling out of control until it's pure chaos. Once one of the nuclear states is in play we could be on the brink of WWIII.

Got that but not got round to reading it yet. How did you find it?

Why presume we can come even close to controlling the integration of people in the first place?
Is segregation all we really can control?

Still haven't cracked it

By this post and spanks post above it, we are all likely never going to agree. There are key points that you and many others are for some reason not able to see when it comes to religious ideologies and the power that they actually posess over weak minded, minimally educated, sheltered people.

I am not here to educate...quite frankly (as I have stated in the past) I really dont think I have the capacity to explain myself as completely and concisely as I would like, hence the videos I post.

But what I will do is stop the derail of this thread...I will be posting in the muslim thread in a bit if you would like to read more of what the mooslims believe (about infidels/nonbelivers in particular)

Not all tho (wink wink)

Why would anyone agree with such pseudo-philosophy about religion politically? Fearmongering. Bigotry. Ignorance. Authority.

This post is of some relevance to this thread and could be things on which well named or others follow-up:

I've more or less decided to agree with LordJvK, FoldnDark, etc. about SJWs. As far as I can tell these are the main characteristics of this group as they understand them.

1) They are mean and uncivil towards political opponents during discussion. Okay. I'm opposed to this. Don't bully other people.

2) They think people who aren't bigots are bigots. I oppose that as well obviously.

3) The primary policy they care about is shutting down other people from political speech. Okay, I don't think we should shut down other people from political speech.

4) They are based on Marxist-flavored Continental Philosophy. Well, I'm not a fan of that stuff either, certainly feel no need to defend it.

Insofar as that is what it means to be a SJW, I'm opposed. I do have two main disagreements:

4) I don't think SJWs (understood as people who accept (1-4)) had a major impact on the Trump election. Maybe they did, but I've seen no good evidence for that claim so far. Claims by FoldnDark and LordJvK that they did are based on anecdote, generalizations, and pattern-matching heuristics that I think are untrustworthy.

5) There is a claim that SJWs are a growing trend, or very powerful, or representative of the Democrat Party right now. This claim seems to me likely popular because it is politically useful for Republicans. It also seems, except for the trend claim, likely false ((1) might be true, who knows, (2) is opposed by almost everyone, (3) The Democratic party supports free speech* (4) no one of significance cares - this is America). You can tell that it is politically motivated from the lack of a clear description of SJWs by their opponents. There is no SJW organization pointed to, no list of policies they argue for, no leaders of the movement. This means that there are no objective constraints on the description of the movement - as long as your listeners trust you, you can describe it however you want. That is a useful tool for politicians and demagogues.

*Here is the Democratic Party Platform acknowledging that hate speech is constitutionally protected freedom of expression:

Here's the issue with 4) and 5).

SJW-ism isn't a movement, it isn't a political party, it's not easily locatable, it's just a social phenomenon. This is why it's hard to characterise and write about because it's diffuse rather than concrete. You can point to individual flashpoints or incidents, which we've done, but those can be hand-waved.

Thanks, OP, for demonstrating anyone can re-write a stereotypical definition for an undefined group of people and give hope that is what they are. Some maybe even really be.

Meanwhile the concepts of social, justice, and warrior are still free for people to have individually and in groups. It's a struggle.

Okay, let me know when you can better characterize it then.

JVK you ignore my post? Come on. I really want someone on the right who thinks they are smart to engage me. I have yet to find a single one worthy of respect. Don't shy away. That only proves you're a pretender.

So it's kind of a difficult thing to explain. A few things are clear:

- It's only really been a thing for the past few years
- It has been massively exacerbated by social media
- It is being driven by young people primarily those in their early 20s who have no knowledge of a world that wasn't basically entirely run by leftist PC principles

The social media point is worth pausing on.

I can't remember who it was that said this on TV in the past week, but essentially it's like these two things combined:

1. Shouting at your TV only everyone can hear you
2. Road rage behind the safety of the windscreen

The impact of this on our society should not be underestimated. The role of social media in the election of Trump shouldn't be either. It really should not be.

If you want a handle on what is *really* going on, you cannot just look at old institutions or mainsteam media anymore. You need to have a look on what's going on in the wilds of the internet.

If you don't think Trump was fuelled by his army of alt right guys online, you haven't got a full grip on this issue.

I'm not really on the right and I thought you were disrespectful about my videos, so what makes you think I'd want to spend time talking to you?

To crush my point if you could? You start off with a seriously flawed model of the social world and I tried to address the substance of that. If I characterize that model as backward and childish in the process, well, that's just part of what happens when people discuss things. Labeling happens to aid in communication. When accompanied by substance (and doesn't go too far) it is usually seen as acceptable.

The history and proliferation of ideas is an important subject, as is the role of intellectuals. Your thoughts on those, which opened your discussion, are laughable. I'm sorry, but it's true.

Here's what I said when someone else raised that objection a few months back:

I cannot adequately defend against this conclusion, because you're correct in pointing out my feelings are built on mostly anecdotal experience and pap psychology, and then supported by motivated reasoning, that is, I look for and find arguments and research that supports my suspicions.

You may have noticed how much I lean on Jonathan Haidt to adjust and buttress my psychological arguments, free speech advocacy groups to back up my worries of illiberalism from the left, and other political pundits and philosophers like the one recently quoted in the identity politics thread to tie it all in with political realities today. These experts have there own motivations as well, and that should be taken into account.

All of this is to point out my beliefs on this are not as solid as they may seem from reading my defenses of them in here. I'm boggled and somewhat rattled by the happenings of this past year, as most of us are, I assume.

Probably the most certain belief I hold on this issue of "SJWs" is what Lord points out, that the movement that is being identified as the alt-right has only benefited from the bad characteristics you outline in 1-4, and that many people are pushed/drawn into that camp, not being able to put up with how insufferable the "SJWs" are. That the creamy-white supremacist center of the alt-right is probably not as large or influential as it's portrayed, and the bulk of the movement is fueled by energy coming from young, angry kids running away from the sanctimonious nannies trying to control their speech and minds. So whatever credit of Trump's rise you give to the alt-right, you have 1-4 to largely thank for it.

That doesn't explain the whole of the reaction that spawned Trump, and it's probably really a symptom of many greater wheels and levers of which I have much less understanding. But considering how much the alt-right reaction is vested in the newly politically active youth, it is a terrible sign for the future of the left if the powers that be don't find a way to rein in 1-4.