Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today....

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The Emu

Premiership Player
Sep 14, 2010
3,605
3,414
.....
AFL Club
Geelong
How much have you studied them?
I get most of my information on what these places are like from people who actually deal with these communities daily and live in close proximity to them. I have a coworker whos Mum actually works for the French Government in welfare so I hear all types of stories and case studies on what is going on straight from the horses mouth. I then compare that information to case studies and news reports from as many different sources as possible to form my opinions. When large groups of Muslims live together they do not adjust their beliefs to those of the country they have migrated to. They instead expect the country to support them and adapt to their lifestyle and beliefs. Women are generally treated as second class citizens and expected (not given the option) to stay at home (if you can be bothered go study the ABS statistics on Muslim families in Australia and how many of the mothers are working).

There are two types of people in here who try sympathise with the idea that Islam is not a bad religion. Those who are Muslim (no s**t sherlock they aren't going to talk badly about their own religion) and young/deluded teenagers (usually hate the West/USA) who have no idea what the world is like (have not had many experiences/interactions outside of Australia). They feel good defending Islam as if it's some persecuted belief system when in reality it is the fastest growing religion in the world that has evolved at the slowest rate and holds onto homophobic, violent and intolerant ideas. The western media has brainwashed many people into actually believing that we should welcome it with open arms when it is the reason for so much bloodshed, death and violence on such a large scale. They say hang on it is changing and evolving it's just slower than other religions - sorry but I don't see Indonesia legalising homosexuality or the Middle East being peaceful anytime soon. Those excuses ran out a long long time ago. It's time they stopped blaming everyone else for the bloodshed and accepted the religion was created by a pedo and based on war and should not be used as a guide to directly follow. If the majority could take only the 'good' and 'tolerant' parts from the teachings I would be happy - the fact is they can't and too many take the violent, intolerant parts and preach/live by them.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
9,663
7,776
AFL Club
St Kilda
I get most of my information on what these places are like from people who actually deal with these communities daily and live in close proximity to them. I have a coworker whos Mum actually works for the French Government in welfare so I hear all types of stories and case studies on what is going on straight from the horses mouth. I then compare that information to case studies and news reports from as many different sources as possible to form my opinions. When large groups of Muslims live together they do not adjust their beliefs to those of the country they have migrated to. They instead expect the country to support them and adapt to their lifestyle and beliefs. Women are generally treated as second class citizens and expected (not given the option) to stay at home (if you can be bothered go study the ABS statistics on Muslim families in Australia and how many of the mothers are working).

There are two types of people in here who try sympathise with the idea that Islam is not a bad religion. Those who are Muslim (no s**t sherlock they aren't going to talk badly about their own religion) and young/deluded teenagers (usually hate the West/USA) who have no idea what the world is like (have not had many experiences/interactions outside of Australia). They feel good defending Islam as if it's some persecuted belief system when in reality it is the fastest growing religion in the world that has evolved at the slowest rate and holds onto homophobic, violent and intolerant ideas. The western media has brainwashed many people into actually believing that we should welcome it with open arms when it is the reason for so much bloodshed, death and violence on such a large scale. They say hang on it is changing and evolving it's just slower than other religions - sorry but I don't see Indonesia legalising homosexuality or the Middle East being peaceful anytime soon. Those excuses ran out a long long time ago. It's time they stopped blaming everyone else for the bloodshed and accepted the religion was created by a pedo and based on war and should not be used as a guide to directly follow. If the majority could take only the 'good' and 'tolerant' parts from the teachings I would be happy - the fact is they can't and too many take the violent, intolerant parts and preach/live by them.
Islam is by far the worst religion.

I've come across quite a few people who have told me that they're well researched, and they've often said very similar things to you.

Most of it turned out to be more on the fear-mongering side.

It's a view that Muslims in Australia are trying to bring in 'Sharia law'. And are planning on taking over Western countries and turning them into middle-Eastern "s**tholes".


I'll be honest, most of the discussions have ended up very disappointing with very little engagement or discourse.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2004
35,323
6,510
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
They were diametrically opposed man. On one hand you had a Far Right wing Fascist leader and on the other a Far Left wing Communist leader, each with totalitarian control over a nation-state. It was always going to explode in an ideological conflict of absolute barbarity on a never before seen scale.
No. See Stalin Vs Trotsky. Mensheviks vs Bolsheviks. You are way off track.


On 16 June 1941, as Hitler readied his forces for Operation Barbarossa, Josef Goebbels looked forward to the new order that the Nazis would impose on a conquered Russia. There would be no come-back, he wrote, for capitalists nor priests nor Tsars. Rather, in the place of debased, Jewish Bolshevism, the Wehrmacht would deliver "der echte Sozialismus": real socialism.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2004
35,323
6,510
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Even more incredible is that one of them has been previously jailed in Lebanon on terrorist activities. How the hell is he living happily in Sydney. I have zero faith in our immigration system.
Come now. I am reliably informed that even if people turn up with no papers at all then there is zero chance they will have any links to terrorism.

Zero.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
33,806
28,295
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Just so you're clear Meds, Right wing politics is a system whereby the State favors the status quo over minorities and women. It's features include being reactionary, patriarchal, ethnocentric or downright xenophobic, homophobic, 'traditional', and often militaristic and nationalistic (or at the very least jingoistic).

Right wing politics favors the dominant status quo in the State (in the West this is traditionally the white, christian, wealthy-middle class, heterosexual, male). Laws get passed in favor of this one group. The disadvantaged in society such as minorities, the poor, different ethnic groups and religions, and women get the short end of the stick, or even get outright persecuted (when moving to the far right).

Right wing parties (in the West) tend to gain their main support base from white, male, christian, 'traditional values' types.

Left wing politics go the other way. They tend towards support of laws that promote the interests of the disadvantaged in society - the poor, women, minorities (both ethnic and religious), LGBTI, refugees and so forth. They tend to ignore or erode the rights of the dominant status quo (white, christian, heterosexual, wealthy to upper class etc) in favor of legislating for the former group.

Labor and Labour, the Democrats and similar groups are 'the Left' because they advocate stronger politics in favor of the disadvantaged in society (strong welfare, social inclusion, support for LGBTI and refugees and migrants, support for feminism and BLM etc) to create parity in society with the dominant social group.

The further Left they go towards establishing parity, the more extreme they get, until they wind up at the Far Left and start persecuting or even massacring the dominant social group (see: Pol Pot) to create this 'equality.'

Republicans, the Tories and the Liberal/ Nats support policies that aid the dominant group (white, christian, wealthy-middle class, heterosexual, male). They'll advocate 'traditional values', meaning 'man runs the show, women in the kitchen, and homosexuals in the closet'. The further Right they go, the more they start persecuting ethnic and religious minorities, women and so forth to eradicate undesirables from society (see: Hitler).

Leftists support minority rights and causes. LGBTI, feminsim, welfare for the poor and so forth. Right wingers oppose these groups getting any love, and instead support policies that favor white, heterosexual, middle- upper class, male causes.

For what it's worth you'll find people on both sides of the political spectrum advocating for State control of the means of production to achieve their goals, and you'll find people on both sides of the political spectrum advocating for private control of the means of production to achieve their goals as well.

Socialism is not 'the Left' anymore than Capitalism is 'the Right'. I can point to plenty of pro-capitalist Leftists, and plenty of pro-socialist RWNJ's.

Arguing anything else just shows you're either a troll or deluded beyond any hope of being saved.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

medusala

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2004
35,323
6,510
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Just so you're clear Meds, Right wing politics is a system whereby the State favors the status quo over minorities and women. It's features include being reactionary, patriarchal, ethnocentric or downright xenophobic, homophobic, 'traditional', and often militaristic and nationalistic (or at the very least jingoistic).
Absolute and utter piffle.

In any event you may want to consider who introduced WAP and Jim Crow laws and which parties abolished slavery.
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
33,806
28,295
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Absolute and utter piffle.

In any event you may want to consider who introduced WAP and Jim Crow laws and which parties abolished slavery.
Hillariously 'reactionary, patriarchal, ethnocentric or downright xenophobic, 'traditional', and often militaristic and nationalistic (or at the very least jingoistic' fits you to a tee.

Would you consider yourself a leftist or a right winger?
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Aug 14, 2004
35,323
6,510
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Hillariously 'reactionary, patriarchal, ethnocentric or downright xenophobic, 'traditional', and often militaristic and nationalistic (or at the very least jingoistic' fits you to a tee.

Would you consider yourself a leftist or a right winger?
Somewhere between Adam Smith and Bastiat.

More whig than Tory.

Your list is idiotic. Thatcher was by daylight the best post war pm.

Meritocracy. You seem to hate it.
 

fleabitten

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 16, 2012
5,625
10,003
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Portland Trailblazers
Oh look, another twit that thinks being a Socialist [advocating for State control of the means of production] is determinant of making someone 'left wing'.
Left, In politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life. The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer’s left. Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favour the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government. Socialism is the standard leftist ideologyin most countries of the world; communism is a more radical leftist ideology.

You say the left is about "stronger politics in favor of the disadvantaged in society", and that's correct, but your idea of disadvantaged is to do with skin colour, genitals and sex life. So a straight white male supporting a family from below the poverty line is not disadvantaged, but wealthy women and brown people are. Like I said, hijacked by yuppies who have no real interest in equality at all.
 

Ed_Gein

You are nex !
Dec 17, 2003
15,152
5,847
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
LFC, BVB, Rangers, Valencia, Storm
I get most of my information on what these places are like from people who actually deal with these communities daily and live in close proximity to them. I have a coworker whos Mum actually works for the French Government in welfare so I hear all types of stories and case studies on what is going on straight from the horses mouth. I then compare that information to case studies and news reports from as many different sources as possible to form my opinions. When large groups of Muslims live together they do not adjust their beliefs to those of the country they have migrated to. They instead expect the country to support them and adapt to their lifestyle and beliefs. Women are generally treated as second class citizens and expected (not given the option) to stay at home (if you can be bothered go study the ABS statistics on Muslim families in Australia and how many of the mothers are working).

There are two types of people in here who try sympathise with the idea that Islam is not a bad religion. Those who are Muslim (no s**t sherlock they aren't going to talk badly about their own religion) and young/deluded teenagers (usually hate the West/USA) who have no idea what the world is like (have not had many experiences/interactions outside of Australia). They feel good defending Islam as if it's some persecuted belief system when in reality it is the fastest growing religion in the world that has evolved at the slowest rate and holds onto homophobic, violent and intolerant ideas. The western media has brainwashed many people into actually believing that we should welcome it with open arms when it is the reason for so much bloodshed, death and violence on such a large scale. They say hang on it is changing and evolving it's just slower than other religions - sorry but I don't see Indonesia legalising homosexuality or the Middle East being peaceful anytime soon. Those excuses ran out a long long time ago. It's time they stopped blaming everyone else for the bloodshed and accepted the religion was created by a pedo and based on war and should not be used as a guide to directly follow. If the majority could take only the 'good' and 'tolerant' parts from the teachings I would be happy - the fact is they can't and too many take the violent, intolerant parts and preach/live by them.
I live in Scotland and even though Islamic presence here isn't all that prominent at all it's still very much a sensitive topic. Know of a few people that quietly resent the idea of having those of Islamic faith moving here on the back of what they hear and see happening in England and Ireland. And on the flipside there are those that would quite comfortably pull out the racism card at the mere hint of intolerance towards Islam. Been down to London a few times and certain areas have devolved into what looks like a 3rd world country to be honest then you hear stories of Muslims patrolling streets at night harassing those that have had a Saturday night out on alcohol because it's against their beliefs. Groups of Muslim youngsters hanging out the front of corner shops making disparaging comments towards young females because they don't agree with what they're wearing and in general being intimidating towards other young kids. Have heard/read about unofficial court systems in areas with high concentration of Muslims so they can carry out their own form of justice under Sharia Law. I'm sorry, but tolerance only extends so far. If you come to the UK you adapt to our way of life, not impose your own regressive beliefs and try to shame us if we don't want to conform.
 

The Emu

Premiership Player
Sep 14, 2010
3,605
3,414
.....
AFL Club
Geelong
I live in Scotland and even though Islamic presence here isn't all that prominent at all it's still very much a sensitive topic. Know of a few people that quietly resent the idea of having those of Islamic faith moving here on the back of what they hear and see happening in England and Ireland. And on the flipside there are those that would quite comfortably pull out the racism card at the mere hint of intolerance towards Islam. Been down to London a few times and certain areas have devolved into what looks like a 3rd world country to be honest then you hear stories of Muslims patrolling streets at night harassing those that have had a Saturday night out on alcohol because it's against their beliefs. Groups of Muslim youngsters hanging out the front of corner shops making disparaging comments towards young females because they don't agree with what they're wearing and in general being intimidating towards other young kids. Have heard/read about unofficial court systems in areas with high concentration of Muslims so they can carry out their own form of justice under Sharia Law. I'm sorry, but tolerance only extends so far. If you come to the UK you adapt to our way of life, not impose your own regressive beliefs and try to shame us if we don't conform.
They want you to be tolerant of their intolerant oppressive and violent religion - it's hard not to laugh. The problem is the Media actually thinks it makes sense - if we just keep supporting and giving love to Muslims they will suddenly embrace homosexuality, let women work and do what they wish and stop blowing each other up. Yep...
 

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
33,806
28,295
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Left, In politics, the portion of the political spectrum associated in general with egalitarianism and popular or state control of the major institutions of political and economic life. The term dates from the 1790s, when in the French revolutionary parliament the socialist representatives sat to the presiding officer’s left. Leftists tend to be hostile to the interests of traditional elites, including the wealthy and members of the aristocracy, and to favour the interests of the working class (see proletariat). They tend to regard social welfare as the most important goal of government.
Which is what I said. Although it's an oversimplification saying the left only care about the working class. The contemporary left care about the disenfranchised generally (ethnic and religious minorities, LGBTI, women etc in addition to the poor).

Right Wingers on the other hand go the other way. They advocate looking after the elites and the privileged (generally the wealthy, white, male hetero, Christian in the West), at the expense of the disenfranchised.

Remember - Socialism is 'control of the means of production by the State (as opposed to control by the private individual).' Nothing more and nothing less. It's neither 'Right wing' or 'Left wing' in and of itself.

Plenty of leftists advocate for a Socialist system to bring about parity for the disenfranchised and the poor and to even the playing field. That doesnt mean 'left wing politics = socialism' though. There are left wing political ideologies that embrace private control of the means of production, or mixed economies.

Conversely there are plenty of right wingers that embrace socialism as a means to achieve their ends. They advocate for State seizing control of the means of production in order to favor the wealthy and disenfranchise the poor, ethnic minorities, LGBTI and so forth.

See Fascism and Nazism as glaring examples.

Look at Hitler (Right wing socialist). He seized control of the means of production to favor the 'German [male heterosexual] Volk' at the expense of women, the disabled, religious minorities (especially the Jews), leftists, LGBTI and so forth (who were eventually murdered). On the flip side look at Pol Pot (Left wing socialist). He seized control of the means of production and then used it to murder everyone who wasnt a poor peasant.

A State seizing control of the means of production doesnt tell you in and of itself whether that State is 'left wing' or 'right wing'. It's why it seizes control, and what it does with that control that matters.

Knobs like Blair Cotterel and his Neo-Nazis mates would happily impose a monolithic State with total control of the means of production, then would immediately start rounding up Jews, LGBTI, leftists, feminists, non White people and so forth.

Are you calling him 'left wing'?
 
Last edited:

fleabitten

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 16, 2012
5,625
10,003
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Portland Trailblazers
Which is what I said. Although it's an oversimplification saying the left only care about the working class. The contemporary left care about the disenfranchised generally (ethnic and religious minorities, LGBTI, women etc in addition to the poor).
That's not just the "contemporary left". That's always been what the left is about. The contemporary left has just simplified what it means to be disenfranchised, basing it on primarily on skin colour, religion, gender etc rather than whether an individual is actually disenfranchised or not.

Right Wingers on the other hand go the other way. They advocate looking after the elites and the privileged (generally the wealthy, white, male hetero, Christian in the West), at the expense of the disenfranchised.

Remember - Socialism is 'control of the means of production by the State (as opposed to control by the private individual).' Nothing more and nothing less. It's neither 'Right wing' or 'Left wing' in and of itself.
Nothing is right wing or left wing in and of itself and I don't think your definition of socialism is accurate. Socialism is public ownership of the means of production vs private ownership of the means of production. Centralists would like that public ownership to be in the hands of the state, but your definition ignores socialist philosophies that believe control should be at the lowest possible level, in the hands of those most directly affected.

Plenty of leftists advocate for a Socialist system to bring about parity for the disenfranchised and the poor and to even the playing field. That doesnt mean 'left wing politics = socialism' though. There are left wing political ideologies that embrace private control of the means of production, or mixed economies.

Conversely there are plenty of right wingers that embrace socialism as a means to achieve their ends. They advocate for State seizing control of the means of production in order to favor the wealthy and disenfranchise the poor, ethnic minorities, LGBTI and so forth.

See Fascism and Nazism as glaring examples.

Look at Hitler (Right wing socialist). He seized control of the means of production to favor the 'German [male heterosexual] Volk' at the expense of women, the disabled, religious minorities (especially the Jews), leftists, LGBTI and so forth (who were eventually murdered). On the flip side look at Pol Pot (Left wing socialist). He seized control of the means of production and then used it to murder everyone who wasnt a poor peasant.

A State seizing control of the means of production doesnt tell you in and of itself whether that State is 'left wing' or 'right wing'. It's why it seizes control, and what it does with that control that matters.
Yep. But seizing the means of production doesn't equal socialism. National socialism is not socialism. That's a claim that's usually made by right-wingers trying to blame the left for Hitler.

Knobs like Blair Cotterel and his Neo-Nazis mates would happily impose a monolithic State with total control of the means of production, then would immediately start rounding up Jews, LGBTI, leftists, feminists, non White people and so forth.

Are you calling him 'left wing'?
Obviously not. Not sure if your comment about him wanting to seize the means of production is true or not, but I doubt his goal would be to hand control over to the workers. He's a National Socialist aka a Nazi aka not an actual socialist.

Determining what is left or right wing is not always simple, but the left's change of focus from being class-based to identity-based is a huge win for the bourgeoisie. The poor unsophisticated peasants of the working class can't hope to keep up with the latest "correct" viewpoints, so they become the enemy.
 

Ed_Gein

You are nex !
Dec 17, 2003
15,152
5,847
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
LFC, BVB, Rangers, Valencia, Storm
 

Connoisseur

Club Legend
Mar 25, 2010
2,079
1,587
AFL Club
Geelong
You say the left is about "stronger politics in favor of the disadvantaged in society", and that's correct, but your idea of disadvantaged is to do with skin colour, genitals and sex life. So a straight white male supporting a family from below the poverty line is not disadvantaged, but wealthy women and brown people are. Like I said, hijacked by yuppies who have no real interest in equality at all.
The regressive left have this strange selective Disadvantaged/Oppressed Hierarchy where Women/Sexual and Ethnic Minorities/Islam (let's be honest, it's the only religion today that needs constant apologist excuses compared to say Hinduism and other religions) trump the concerns of anybody else.

To me the hard left's beliefs are extremely reactionary (or reactive), and therefore lack coherence and deserve zero respect, in that they are overly preoccupied about who Right wingers are currently targeting/criticizing rather than being intellectually honest and admitting to themselves that in some occasions conservatives might actually have a point. Even if unfortunately some bigots inevitably hide behind those arguments only because they dislike certain groups for other invalid discriminatory reasons; never-the-less it doesn't negate the validity of the original pressing concerns.

An excellent example of this weird behaviour would be Islam and the belligerent defense of a religion that is diametrically opposed to their own precious 'progressive' values. In this case the fact that many followers are non-white/brown makes the temporarily and selectively blind to the ugliness of Islam and somehow convince themselves that eventually second, third generation Muslims will assimilate seamlessly into a secular culture which flies in the face of what has occurred throughout thousands of years in the Mid East (in places like Syria, Egypt that used to be Christian) and Asia (Pakistan, Indonesia that used to be overwhelmingly Buddhist and Hindu).

Their misguided unquestionable commitment to the cause goes as far as denigrating other minorities if necessary. There were reports of some progressive protesting scum yelling out that economic migrants kept in camps shouldn't be forced to stay in PNG a minute longer because the place was a 'sh*thole' (when the camp was a probably a holiday resort compared to the average Papuan abode) and their lives in danger for living among 'cannibals'. Dear, oh dear.

They are even prepared to throw women, their largest grievance members numbers wise, under the bus to appease trans people who are perceived to be a more vulnerable minority. Therefore making their plight and concerns more worthy and above that of the average women even if it means a female athlete could end up paying with her life for having no choice but to compete against a person who is vastly physically stronger and superior to her.

It's this sort of stupidity that's gradually made me distance myself from identifying as leaning Left over the years. Critical thought seems beyond the rabid hard left as they're just too caught up on extreme Leftist ideology and treat it like an infallible religion that is above reproach and criticism.
 
Last edited:

Malifice

Moderator
Oct 2, 2007
33,806
28,295
Perth
AFL Club
Carlton
Determining what is left or right wing is not always simple, but the left's change of focus from being class-based to identity-based is a huge win for the bourgeoisie. The poor unsophisticated peasants of the working class can't hope to keep up with the latest "correct" viewpoints, so they become the enemy.
That's the central flaw with Socialism though; you dont hand control of the means of production over to the workers; you hand control over to the State.

Do 'the workers' in Cuba, Korea, the former USSR and Cambodia etc control anything, or is everything controlled by a unitary party totalitarian State, often against the wishes and will of the workers?

Liberals could have told Socialists what would be the inevitable outcome of the State controlling the means of production; a unitary party totalitarian tyranny.

So far we've been 100 percent correct.
 
Top Bottom