Sinking boats in the Mediterranean.

[Joel]

Stahp

I know your ideology means well, but it brings untold misery to a lot of people. Liberals who can't accept this fact need to do some serious reflection before they condemn others as "racist".

You are. You judge individuals and assign character flaws based on their race. That is racist. Not "racist".

 

[Scaff]

OK I am going to need crystal clear instructions first before I can reply. Which thread do I put the question in? The Islam thread, UK election results thread, Britain thread, a new "Immigration" thread??

It's rather simple. If its about Islam in Britain specifically then the Britain thread, if its about Islam in general then the Islam thread.

I'm not sure whats so tricky about it?

I am aware, hence why I've picked a statement from the article that has nothing to do with the chart. Stop focussing on the chart - that is an adjunct.

I'm going to be blunt and say that I simply do not believe you.

Your original post contained the graph as the main focus, its a lttle trite to then tell people not to focus on it, not does the article in question mention the Swedish method of recording incidents, that's the 'missing' factor I repeatedly asked you about.

If you were aware of this you would first know (as the Swedish Police and UN have both made clear) that using the graph without that information is simply misleading and would have been able to identify it as the missing factor.

I am starting to think your ideology is more dangerous than any (and I do mean any) religion. It is dangerous and immoral to continue ignoring facts that are staring you so blatantly in your face.

I know your ideology means well, but it brings untold misery to a lot of people. Liberals who can't accept this fact need to do some serious reflection before they condemn others as "racist".

No one is ignoring facts, what we are questioning is firstly the use of the facts in a misleading (deliberately so) manner and the use of them to take a section of a group and apply it to the whole. That is as dangerous to society as excusing everything, a route that no one I have seen here is even close to suggesting, but I do see you using sources that do clearly suggest that the actions of some can and should be applied to the whole.

Its akin to me saying that as you clearly have an issue with Islam and Liberals that you full support Anders Breivik, condone his actions and are likely to try and emulate them at the soonest opportunity.

Stahp

Quality source. I did a little digging and the coverage of the London Riots is 'interesting' to say the least, in particular the new history of the riots of the '80's. Its nice to have the events rewritten to meet the aims of the far right.

 

[KSaiyu]

You are. You judge individuals and assign character flaws based on their race. That is racist. Not "racist".

I look at evidence, and come to conclusions you don't like.

You are being racist by forcing victims to be silent because you don't like the colour of the victims. Your ideology is fast running out of supporters. And about bloody time.

It's rather simple. If its about Islam in Britain specifically then the Britain thread, if its about Islam in general then the Islam thread.

I'm not sure whats so tricky about it?

It's tricky because you didn't provide an answer that would lead me to know where I should continue the point. I will post it in the Islam thread.

I'm going to be blunt and say that I simply do not believe you.

Your original post contained the graph as the main focus, its a lttle trite to then tell people not to focus on it, not does the article in question mention the Swedish method of recording incidents, that's the 'missing' factor I repeatedly asked you about.

If you were aware of this you would first know (as the Swedish Police and UN have both made clear) that using the graph without that information is simply misleading and would have been able to identify it as the missing factor.

Article is the main focus. Argue that. Graph is one of the supporting evidence. You've attacked that one supporting evidence only, using the tired "Well the UN says" excuse. Tie it in with the statement from the appeal court and you can see how it's a useful representation, but not perfect (as you have pointed out).

No one is ignoring facts, what we are questioning is firstly the use of the facts in a misleading (deliberately so) manner and the use of them to take a section of a group and apply it to the whole. That is as dangerous to society as excusing everything, a route that no one I have seen here is even close to suggesting, but I do see you using sources that do clearly suggest that the actions of some can and should be applied to the whole.

Its akin to me saying that as you clearly have an issue with Islam and Liberals that you full support Anders Breivik, condone his actions and are likely to try and emulate them at the soonest opportunity.

Definitely debatable.

Quality source. I did a little digging and the coverage of the London Riots is 'interesting' to say the least, in particular the new history of the riots of the '80's. Its nice to have the events rewritten to meet the aims of the far right.

Automatically discounts all the other sources cited about Sweden, and the comments section.

Non biased criticism of course.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

You are being racist by forcing victims to be silent because you don't like the colour of the victims.

I haven't seen him say anything of the sort. Your accusation hold no traction, and I would strongly suggest that you retract it and apologise before you are reported to the moderators for your behaviour. As someone who is a former moderator, I can honestly say that I would have banned you weeks ago for your disruptive, hateful and bullying tactics.

Your ideology is fast running out of supporters. And about bloody time.

I could have predicted this reaction from a demagogue such as yourself - demonise anyone who isn't you.

 

[KSaiyu]

I haven't seen him say anything of the sort. Your accusation hold no traction, and I would strongly suggest that you retract it and apologise before you are reported to the moderators for your behaviour. As someone who is a former moderator, I can honestly say that I would have banned you weeks ago for your disruptive, hateful and bullying tactics.

Huh?

You are. You judge individuals and assign character flaws based on their race. That is racist. Not "racist".

One is actually calling me out, the other is using "you" as an attack on an ideology and proponents of it.. Please tell me you see the difference (it's blatantly obvious - how has Noob616 actually silenced victims himself??), and effectively you're calling for Noob616 to be reported (of course he could be using the metaphorical "you", but it's up to him to decide). I'd also like to see the proof where I am "judging individuals" and "assigning character flaws" based on race. I let it go, but you brought it back up.

I could have predicted this reaction from a demagogue such as yourself - demonise anyone who isn't you.

Still name-calling I see.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Huh?

It's quite simple: one upon a time, I was a moderator. That's what the "Staff Emeritus" badge under my username means. You can consider yourself lucky that I gave it up, because I think that you have been given an extraordinary amount of latitude in which to express your hatred, your bigotry and your utter contempt for anyone who does not share your views. And because of that, I would have banned you weeks ago and without so much as a second thought if I were still a moderator.

Still name-calling I see.

You have no right to condemn someone as a racist without any justification, and then complain when you are described in less-than-flattering terms. Worse, in your case, the shoe fits. You appeal to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of people around you. You oppose any sort of deliberation and instead call for immediate, violent action to address a "national crisis". And if anyone is moderate in their views or offers some kind of thoughtful ideas, then you accuse them of weakness. You are a demagogue.

 

[KSaiyu]

It's quite simple: one upon a time, I was a moderator. That's what the "Staff Emeritus" badge under my username means. You can consider yourself lucky that I gave it up, because I think that you have been given an extraordinary amount of latitude in which to express your hatred, your bigotry and your utter contempt for anyone who does not share your views. And because of that, I would have banned you weeks ago and without so much as a second thought if I were still a moderator.

Proof required.

You have no right to condemn someone as a racist without any justification, and then complain when you are described in less-than-flattering terms. Worse, in your case, the shoe fits. You appeal to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of people around you. You oppose any sort of deliberation and instead call for immediate, violent action to address a "national crisis". And if anyone is moderate in their views or offers some kind of thoughtful ideas, then you accuse them of weakness. You are a demagogue.

Proof required.

I'm sorry, but you're not silencing legitimate criticism of your politics so easily. This isn't 2010.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Proof required.

Of what? My being a former moderator? It's on the FAQ:

“Staff Emeritus” users are, by definition of the word “emeritus”, former moderators. They no longer use the site’s moderation tools, though do still have access to the moderator’s private discussion forums and user infraction information.

https://www.gtplanet.net/faq/

Proof required.

Go into your profile and click "my posts". That should be all the proof you need.

 

[KSaiyu]

Of what? My being a former moderator?

"...in which to express your hatred, your bigotry and your utter contempt for anyone who does not share your views"

To be honest I take it as a badge of honour.

The men and women who exposed Rotherham were branded Islamophobes and racists
The men and women who exposed Trojan Horse were branded Islamophobes and racists
The men and women who exposed Tower Hamlets were called Islamophobes and racists (including one with a Bangladeshi wife)

I'm lucky to be in their company, so thank you.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

To be honest I take it as a badge of honour.

And I think that says everything that can be said about your character.

 

[Scaff]

And this has simply turned personal.

Locked