Puzzlenuzzle
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 945
bleuehgjdkg
ps. Stéphane Hessel is my hero!
ps. Stéphane Hessel is my hero!
Last edited:
the climate change scam
- Thread starter kinglear
- Start date
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
Puzzlenuzzle
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 945
HIS
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
At 95?
Puzzlenuzzle
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 945
Yes at 95.
His reputation was harmed. Like Ren said: he would have been considered a hero if not for the fact that he was branded as anti Semitic.
Puzzlenuzzle
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 945
In other news: A 2 year old finds being called a 'poohead' the worst insult in the world.
- MBTI
- ????
- Enneagram
- 9w1
And yet, you've described him as being your hero, so...
Also I don't mean to pick bones, but this seems to me like the guy is more pilloried to having a pro-Palestinian stance when the establiment favours the pro-Israeli one. Same thing that's happening with Corbyn except he's a white dude and more immune to this ruining him.
And yeah, I'll concede that being anti-Israel is the one context where an unfounded accusation of racism can make an impact on someones career, but considering Israel is a racist enthostate, the accusations tend to come from the racists themselves.
Edit: I think we're on the same page here just reading different sentences...
Puzzlenuzzle
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 945
Yes for speaking up. Those that speak up against the 'norm' for an important cause I tend to look up to because there is a lot of risk in doing so.
Depends what establishment. Some are pro Israeli and others are pro-palestinian.
However, this whole things that Deleted member 16771 said has little to nothing to do with anti-semitism.
Britain has their own history with racism and particularly the west asian influx. Anyway, that has little to do with what Deleted member 16771 said also (I think).
I suppose that the reason he said it has to do with arguments concerning Brexit. Certain groups brand the other racist when they state that they're against immigration. Therefore, because of that the insult 'racist' is a powerful insult in Britain now as it shuts down open communication.
Either way, humanity has learned 'I vs us' but it's still learning 'us vs them'.
D
Deleted member 16771
Forgive me, the 'racist' label was used in another thread ('Vote (or not)'). But let me clarify my objection (and btw, Skare is one of my favourite people, so I say this as something that any right-minded person can engage in, me included).
As @Ren and @Puzzlenuzzle and @Lady Jolanda have pointed out, being labelled a 'racist' is a very serious thing to happen to you in contemporary Western society. It can be career ending, and I can think of very few other terms which have the effect of practically immediate ostracism if they stick.
In the context of a debate, therefore, an ad hominem attack of such magnitude as this can often have the effect of seriously damaging the credibility of the party so labelled whether it is true or not.
We must reflect that it is a powerfully dehumanising label: once it sticks, anything you say or think is ignored, and hence we should apply it to individuals only with extreme caution or certainty.
For example, take the following true statement and reflect how strange it makes you feel:
Sometimes racists make good points
Or what about this:
Sometimes racists make good points, and we should listen to them!
Racism was perhaps the greatest evil of the twentieth century, and we should be right to be sensitive about it, but we have an equal duty to make sure that our civil discourse is healthy and accepting of all sincerely held opinions, otherwise these opinions get driven underground, away from the critical light, and may one day come back to bite us.
So the admonition is a simple one: attack the ideas not the man, because human beings are simply too precious to be discarded and discounted in such ways.
'Erroneous' or fallacious opinions should be argued against, not used as evidence of someone's inherent corruption. Otherwise this democracy we have is farcical at best.
I am a sincere believer in the 'public forum' and in democracy, and perhaps the avoidance of ad hominem attacks, however tempting, however true, is just part of the duty we must exercise in order to uphold these institutions in the long term.
Last edited by a moderator:
Puzzlenuzzle
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 945
poohead
D
Deleted member 16771
Your argument is invalid, because I happen to know that you are a poohead.
But I love you <3
Puzzlenuzzle
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 945
Nevermind the first post lol. I just had to try it
This is true but I also think nations...or individuals should recognise why certain insults over others hold stronger value.
Thank you
, -one should learn how to take compliments and insults -puzzlenuzzleedit:
love you too <3
Also, my dad is stronger than your dad
Last edited:
wow that is a refreshing level of maturity!
what we need to keep in sight here is that behind all these narratives and rhetoric is an IDEOLOGICAL struggle
what is called 'the left' by the corporate media is really not a movement for the people at all. It is corporate socialism which ends up with the capitalist oligarchs in total control
In order for them to achieve their vision for global control they must first smash nation states and the mass movement of people is one means by which they do this. Another means by which they do this is to teach youngsters in university to hate their own country by pushing overly simplistic narratives about history that don't really dig down into the who's and the wherefore's
The aim of this 'critical theory' is to condition (brainwash) young people into hating their country but without ever really thinking in depth about the workable solutions to the worlds problems (and the world DOES have problems)
What the corporate socialists (capitalist oligarchs) do to keep everyone fussing and fighting among themselves is they divide society into competing factions through identity politics and then they teach those factions to use 'political correctness' to silence anyone who questions any of the elites narratives
By doing this they make many people into the unwitting dupes of the elites scheme to enslave humanity under their technocracy
So if you question weaponised (orchestrated) MASS immigration then according to what the elites deem through THEIR media to be 'politically correct' you are a 'racist'
It doesn't matter if you actually really care about the plight of the immigrants but share a different view of what can be done about the situation (eg ending third world debt to the corporate socialists and getting the financiers claws out of their countries)
This then shuts down any nuanced discussion about the IDEOLOGY that is behind this thereby preventing the public from ever being able to have a proper debate about what sort of society they would actually like to have
Last edited:
How is having a kinship towards your fellow human a support to an elite agenda to enslave humans?
Did you really just try to kinship shame me?
edit:
Also, what you said prior:
May I remind you that this was your point. The referendum was our argument. We weren't including in it the goal to reduce population, now were we?
First of all, You don't get to twist things and put words in my mouth to support your view point. Kinship is love for people, humanity, whatever (and that includes you and everyone else).
Secondly, I have enjoyed your arguments because well, it's completely different from mine and I respect when people fight for what they believe in. However, you do not get to shame me for taking a stand against something I feel is unfair towards people even though I'm not from there, and then twist it into some elite enslavement.
Lastly, gaslighting rattles with my 8wing.
i'm not shaming you, i'm informing you that the agenda you currently support is not what you think it is
it is not a grassroots movement by common people looking to share kinship
it is an inter-generational plan by a network of people to enslave the rest of humanity under their control
of course they won't present it that way because then you wouldn't allow yourself to support it so they hide everything they do behind false narratives designed to mask their true intentions behind faux-morality when anyone who knows the kind of activities those people have been involved in throughout history will know that they are criminals of the absolute worst kind
Last edited:
I mean how much have people really looked into why there are so many migrants?
so one cause is the economic hardship wreaked on third world countries by the corporate socialists and the leftwing journalist john pilger has covered this in his investigation into the role of the IMF in getting countries into debt servitude:
War by other means - IMF _ World Bank are weapons of war , by John Pilger_031
so one cause is the economic hardship wreaked on third world countries by the corporate socialists and the leftwing journalist john pilger has covered this in his investigation into the role of the IMF in getting countries into debt servitude:
War by other means - IMF _ World Bank are weapons of war , by John Pilger_031
i have criticised the vatican online, i have criticised what i see as the lunatic prophesy of christian zionism (which involves the destruction of any jews who don't convert to christianity) and i have questioned the hadiths of islam that say that muslims can take non muslims as their sex slaves if taken by 'the right hand' (ie by conquest) which is very topical in the UK at the moment as thousands of white british children have been raped by organised muslim rape gangs across many british towns
i had no problem while discussing these topics
But if you try and question the prophesy of judaism that they will build a third temple on temple mount and then their messiah will arrive and they will enslave ALL other peoples then woah mumma!
all hell breaks loose
its all 'anti-semite' this and 'anti-semite' that.....but it's like ''i'm not the one with a prophecy that says i'm going to enslave you''
what these people all need is to have a mirror held upto their views
Last edited:
white dudes are the least immune from being destroyed by such accusations because they are the ones the corporate socialists most want to squash so they are the ones getting it in the neck most of all from political correctness
i disagree...
Over 50% Of College Students Afraid To Disagree With Peers, Professors
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/31/2018 - 20:05
As more and more college professors express their social and political views in classrooms, students across the country are feeling increasingly afraid to disagree according to a survey of 800 full-time undergraduate college students, reported by the Wall Street Journal's James Freeman.
When students were asked if they’ve had “any professors or course instructors that have used class time to express their own social or political beliefs that are completely unrelated to the subject of the course,” 52% of respondents said that this occurs “often,” while 47% responded, “not often.”
A majority—53%—also reported that they often “felt intimidated” in sharing their ideas, opinions or beliefs in class because they were different from those of the professors. -WSJ
What's more, 54% of students say they are intimidated expressing themselves when their views conflict with those of their classmates.
The survey, conducted by McLaughlin & Associates on behalf of Yale's William F. Buckley, Jr. Program (which counts Freeman among its directors), was undertaken between October 8th and 18th, and included students at both public and private four-year universities across the country.
This is a problem, suggests Freeman - as unbiased teachers who formerly filled universities have been replaced by activists who "unfortunately appear to be just as political and overbearing as one would expect," and that "perhaps the actual parents who write checks can someday find some way to encourage more responsible behavior."
Read the rest below via the Wall Street Journal:
***
As for the students, there’s at least a mixed message in the latest survey results. On the downside, the fact that so many students are afraid of disagreeing with their peers does not suggest a healthy intellectual atmosphere even outside the classroom. There’s more disappointing news in the answers to other survey questions. For example, 59% of respondents agreed with this statement:
My college or university should forbid people from speaking on campus who have a history of engaging in hate speech.
This column does not favor hatred, nor the subjective definition of “hate speech” by college administrators seeking to regulate it. In perhaps the most disturbing finding in the poll results, 33% of U.S. college students participating in the survey agreed with this statement:
If someone is using hate speech or making racially charged comments, physical violence can be justified to prevent this person from espousing their hateful views.
An optimist desperately searching for a silver lining would perhaps note that 60% of respondents did not agree that physical violence is justified to silence people speaking what someone has defined as “hate speech” or “racially charged” comments. But the fact that a third of college students at least theoretically endorse violence as a response to offensive speech underlines the threat to free expression on American campuses.
Perhaps more encouraging are the responses to this question:
Generally speaking, do you think the First Amendment, which deals with freedom of speech, is an outdated amendment that can no longer be applied in today’s society and should be changed or an important amendment that still needs to be followed and respected in today’s society?
A full 79% of respondents opted for respecting the First Amendment, while 17% backed a rewrite.
On a more specific question, free speech isn’t winning by the same landslide. When asked if they would favor or oppose their schools having speech codes to regulate speech for students and faculty, 54% of U.S. college kids opposed such codes while 38% were in favor.
The free exchange of ideas is in danger on American campuses. And given the unprofessional behavior of American faculty suggested by this survey, education reformers should perhaps focus on encouraging free-speech advocates within the student body while adopting a campus slogan from an earlier era: Don’t trust anyone over 30.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-28/over-50-college-students-afraid-disagree-peers-professors
Puzzlenuzzle
Banned
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 945
My 'agenda' is sympathy.
yeah see that's what your heart is telling you and that's good but we also need to hear what our head is saying
there was a couple in the news in the UK in recent years who took a homeless guy off the street into their home to try and help him. he stole from them and then murdered them