TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts

Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr     Instagram    Hotlines    Safety Zone    Alternatives

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

  • Connect with thousands of teenagers worldwide by actively taking part in our Support Forums and Chat Room.
  • Find others with similar interests in our Social Groups.
  • Express yourself through our Blogs, Picture Albums and User Profiles.
  • And much much more!

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!


Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - July 7th 2017, 05:38 PM

I do recommend people to watch the entire debate, from start to finish. It's very informative. I learned things I didn't know from both sides:

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?
http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org...religion-peace

Now, to justify the title I chose for this thread... look at the the "Results" tab, that shows people's opinions before and after the debate. Do it now, before you read the rest of this thread. Take a good look.

...........

There is a reason why political correctness has been endorsed by many people on the left... and this debate unintentionally illustrates this point. Sorry to say, but today, many of the left's attitudes, policies and slogans are simply indefensible, because they subvert even common sense itself. Another fantastic and concise case of double-think that occurred to me recently recently is...

... how can the left support raising the minimum wage, while at the same time supporting open borders and the importation of cheap labor into the economy?

It just doesn't stick, regardless of whether you're for or against either of those things, or even both of them. Sorry. Importing cheap labor lowers wages, so you want to at the same time raise the minimum wage??? How? Where does the difference in money come from? Most businesses operate with a slim profit margin, and it's safe to assume that the average profit margin of businesses across a country is comparable to the growth in GDP... that's about 1-5% depending on the country (in the West). Most businesses don't have enough spare money lying around to simply "pay more", and multi-billion banks that can afford it tend not to hire low skill labor.

It doesn't compute. It loses debates, and loses elections. And when it does win elections it ruins the economy instead by forcing people to work on the black market to earn a living (no tax revenue, dangerous, abusive, exploitative employers, unregulated, illegal, etc.). While working on the black market, they are officially unemployed, so probably claiming welfare as well. And the social / community problems that branch off from all of this. And isn't all of this precisely what has been happening???

Political correctness on the other hand, aims to avoid and often even proactively discourage debates on some of these topics altogether. It's increasingly transparent why this is. The results for the audience after the debate were a landslide, and if I remember right, these are New Yorkers... some of the most liberal people on the planet. Just imagine the travesty of more such people being exposed to even more "right wing propaganda" and "hate speech".

Ugh. If it's "hate speech" to say that "Islam isn't a religion of peace", or that "open borders raise crime rates"... then you're obviously losing the fight against so called "hate speech".

.


"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.



Last edited by BDF; July 8th 2017 at 09:01 PM.
   
2 user(s) liked this post or found it helpful.
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
Jordioa18 Offline
Member
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
Jordioa18's Avatar
 
Name: Jordi
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Location: Bumblefuck, The Netherlands

Posts: 725
Blog Entries: 10
Join Date: February 12th 2012

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - July 11th 2017, 09:15 PM

I haven't watched the video (Will do so at a later date, it is pretty long though and I have a busy week ahead of me.), but I think that suppressing criticism/discussion of Islam under the word 'Islamophobia' flat out echo chamberous. Extra points if the person calling the critic of Islam an 'Islamophobe' criticizes Christianity himself, that's a hypocrite.

I have spoken with someone who has read the Quran and (for the most part) Hadith and he confirmed that Muhammad is the complete opposite of Jesus and he thinks that if Muslims read it fully for themselves (The Hadith mostly) that they would denounce it and maybe even convert to a different religion.

And I got another statement/question about terrorism in Islamism. Although I am not denying that there are extremist Christian terrorists or from any other religion/political stance, nor that every Muslim is a terrorist, most (Mainstream?) terrorists happen to be Muslim, is that a colossal coincidence or is there an agenda tied to it? I am thinking the latter but I could see it being the former despite the past because of different interpretations (Although there weren't big scale reformations like Christianity or most mainstream religions had)


Skype: jordiadutchbroski
PSN: jordioa18

If you need help, PM/VM me
  Send a message via Skype™ to Jordioa18 
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
.:Bibliophile:. Offline
PM me anytime!

TeenHelp Veteran
*************
 
.:Bibliophile:.'s Avatar
 
Gender: Just me

Posts: 16,320
Blog Entries: 1722
Join Date: January 18th 2009

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - July 13th 2017, 06:55 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordioa18 View Post
I haven't watched the video (Will do so at a later date, it is pretty long though and I have a busy week ahead of me.), but I think that suppressing criticism/discussion of Islam under the word 'Islamophobia' flat out echo chamberous. Extra points if the person calling the critic of Islam an 'Islamophobe' criticizes Christianity himself, that's a hypocrite.

I have spoken with someone who has read the Quran and (for the most part) Hadith and he confirmed that Muhammad is the complete opposite of Jesus and he thinks that if Muslims read it fully for themselves (The Hadith mostly) that they would denounce it and maybe even convert to a different religion.

And I got another statement/question about terrorism in Islamism. Although I am not denying that there are extremist Christian terrorists or from any other religion/political stance, nor that every Muslim is a terrorist, most (Mainstream?) terrorists happen to be Muslim, is that a colossal coincidence or is there an agenda tied to it? I am thinking the latter but I could see it being the former despite the past because of different interpretations (Although there weren't big scale reformations like Christianity or most mainstream religions had)

Yeah, except more terrorist attacks are committed by Right Wing Extremists: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7805831.html.

I don't have the time to respond to the rest of the thread but I might come back later with thoughts. Not sure though.


|Lead Moderator|Newsletter Officer|
   
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
MWF Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
MWF's Avatar
 
Name: Robert
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Location: The Best City On Earth

Posts: 1,708
Join Date: May 22nd 2010

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - July 13th 2017, 07:36 AM

If nobody's responding, its probably because responding requires us to watch a very long debate. I'm assuming its incredibly interesting, but I just don't have time to watch it.
Anyway...
I have a typical American perspective, so it might be different than what you've experienced in Europe. But yeah, you can't support free trade and at the same time support a minimum wage- free trade undermines the minimum wage. When Bill Clinton signed NAFTA, the choice for companies often came between American workers and low-wage laborers in Mexico, and they decided to ship the jobs to Mexico. And I guess its just my life experience, but I've never met anyone anywhere who supports open trade borders as well as a living (or minimum) wage. I've never met anybody who supports open borders anyway, not even at my ultra-liberal university. Its not often talked about in America except as a scare tactic. I've only ever seen the Democratic Party establishment support both (Not open borders, but open trade borders). They're neo-liberals. Not REAL liberals, but neo-liberals. They're barely fiscally liberal but they're socially liberal so they can have a selling point to vote for them. That's why you'll see the contradiction over this particular issue- open borders (trade borders specifically) and a liberal economy don't match up. American liberals typically don't support free trade and a higher minimum wage at the same time. Free trade deals like NAFTA and CAFTA undermine unions, the minimum wage, and sensible regulations- all things that our ideal economy is built off of. This contradiction between borders/trade and minimum wage is rare here.
The Democrats try to be the nice guy who will "help" poor people around the world while at the same time appeasing their donors. THAT loses elections: pretending to be a workers' party while serving corporations is what loses elections, at least in America. From what I understand (and I'm probably wrong) this is somewhat the way the Conservative Party in Britain functions in terms of economics, except I BELIEVE they're tougher on immigration(?).
I don't know what your country's like, but American conservatives live off of double-speak. Pro-life/pro-death penalty; work hard for a living, but you shouldnt get a living wage for 40 hours of work; work your way through college, but its usually literally impossible; supports the military/opposes veteran benefits; we like small government, but allow the NSA to watch everyones phones; small government, but throw people in prison for smoking a plant; deport illegal immigrants because they take our jobs, even though we don't take the jobs they do. And the list goes on forever. Pick an issue, any issue. If you talk about these issues with conservatives in America, oftentimes in my experience they'll notice their doublespeak and pivot on one half of the hypocrisy so that it's more congruent with the more important issue. With our politicians, however, it doesnt even matter, there's no pivot and they come off as crazy people.

To go to the other topic, the way I see Islamist terrorism is that it is about 85% a byproduct of western adventurism in the Middle East. After everything we've done to obliterate Iraq and Afghanistan, and what with Syria having the Assads in power as brutal dictators (Their problem, now we're involved), its no wonder to me that Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all currently in civil wars. You'll notice that Jordan, Turkey (minus the coup attempt on Erdogan), Saudi Arabia, and Iran don't deal with perpetual internal instability. It's a lot easier to rationalize picking up a machine gun after a drone "accidentally" kills your brother in the streets. That rationalization could come from the Quran, the Bible, the Torah, the Vedas, or basically any holy book that happens to include brutal warfare. They would probably rationalize the violence even without religion, just human nature, because attacking people who attack your family can often make sense. But for these specific people, the rationalization comes from the Quran.
An important sidenote is that in Iraq, at least, America took power from the secular Ba'athists under Saddam and gave power to one religious group, the Shia, pissing off the Sunnis. ISIS is a Sunni fundamentalist group that is led by many former generals from Sadam's regime. ISIS, in my opinion, probably would've been a far less successful insurgency than they were without Sadam's generals- at least, they wouldn't have blitzkrieged half of Iraq within a few months. I would chalk ISIS up as a result of war, oppression and a power vacuum.
The reason I left that 15% there is because of Saudi Arabia. They are pretty much the exporter, if there is one, of Islamist terrorism. But the strain of Islam they push isn't a typical mainstream ideology, its Wahhabism, an ultra-conservative (right-wing, if you will) strain of Islam that is far more fundamentalist than the others. Their government pushes that on their people (brainwashing), and then they try to spread that ideology to other countries like Indonesia through schooling- and Indonesia has gotten far more conservative in recent years. But the way I think of Saudi Arabia is basically like North Korea in reverse. 1. They brainwash their citizens with a fundamentalist religion (Wahhabism for Saudis, Juche/cult of Kim for NK) to hate the west. Then the comparisons split off in different directions. 2. Saudi Arabia allies with the west. 3. Saudi Arabia allows their citizens to leave for the west, and a very small portion of those people then fight against the west. If North Korea did this same thing, I think the same thing would happen. I have a very strong feeling that Juche (or more precisely the Kims because they are the gods in the religion) would be regarded as a dangerous religion along with Islam. And yet, most people haven't even heard of it.


Wish I lived in Canada. UPDATE, NOV. 9th, 2016: This statement has become even more appropriate.
I vow that I will attack this endeavor with an enthusiasm unknown to mankind. Jim Harbaugh

"Being an adult sucks. The only positives are weed, sex, and cars, and I have none of those right now." -Me

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hatred cannot drive out hatred; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King Jr.
   
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - July 16th 2017, 10:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Abibliophobe~ View Post
Yeah, except more terrorist attacks are committed by Right Wing Extremists: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7805831.html.

I don't have the time to respond to the rest of the thread but I might come back later with thoughts. Not sure though.
I went through the trouble of reading the article you linked and some of the nested links within it... but then they got really long so I stopped. It's 11pm where I am now... so I'll go through the article bit by bit, until I've run out of steam.

1.
Quote:
Most of the designated terrorist groups in the US are right-wing extremists, not Muslim, according to a new report
"Terrorist groups" is not the same as "terrorist incidents", or "deaths by terrorism". One group, for example ISIS, is capable of killing far more people than today's KKK is capable of. Granted, ISIS doesn't have "boots on the ground" in the US. I'm just illustrating the vague quantities used in the article to describe "terrorism".

2.
Quote:
right-wing extremists were behind nearly twice as many incidents” as terror acts associated with those identified as “Islamist domestic terrorism
What exactly is the scope of the definition for "right-wing extremists"? Are right-wing extremists limited to just being "white people" (the common understanding)? I ask because technically speaking, any ethnocentric extremism is "right-wing" in ideals. But according to the battle lines and alliances which have been drawn in politics today, black people (for example) committing acts of violence are more likely to be labeled "left-wing extremists" (black panthers).

So let's assume that "right-wing extremists" are indeed "far-right white supremacists".

3.
Quote:
The report identified 63 incidents involving those “motivated by a theocratic political ideology espoused by such groups as the Islamic State”
Quote:
Right-wing extremists, often white supremacists, were responsible for 115 incidents within the same period.
Now lets compare proportions. There are 250 million white people in America. There are an (estimated) 3 million Muslims in America.

Math (ratio of terrorist incidents to people)
Islam: 65 / 3million = 0.0000216 terrorist incidents per person
Right-wing extremists: 115 / 250million = 0.00000046 terrorist incidents per person

The figure for Islam is 47x more terror incidents, in America, per person, than it is for far-right extremists. In other words, in America, a Muslim person is more likely than a white person to commit or attempt an act of terrorism, by about 4700%.

4.
Quote:
In terms of police action, 76 per cent of the Islamist incidents were thwarted versus just 35 per cent of the right-wing extremist incidents.
Yes, it makes sense that law enforcement would prefer to focus on the part of society that appears to be producing threats at a disproportionate rate (see math above). This is efficient allocation of law enforcement resources. Plus, it is easier to focus attention on a smaller population of 3 million, than it is to focus attention on a population of 250 million, thereby making it easier to thwart Islamist terror incidents.

Unfortunately, "profiling" is something everyone does. Law enforcers have all the more reason to, given what their job actually entails.

The remaining stats quoted in the next two paragraphs do not really add or take anything away from the main argument of the article, so I won't address them.

5.
Quote:
Regarding violent extremism on the left of the political spectrum, between 2008 and 2016 there were 19 incidents and seven deaths.
Ok. Big topic here. AntiFa isn't even designated a terrorist group, except for in the state of New Jersey, despite carrying out politically motivated violence (which is the definition of terrorism) internationally now. Neither is BAMN designated a terrorist group, a group that uses similar methods to AntiFa.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical of the stats on "violent extremism on the left". There are appear to be significant shortfalls in even recognizing these extremist groups, let alone attributing crimes to them in official crime statistics.

And I'm sorry to say, but this follows a larger pattern of obfuscating various data related to left-wing related "incidents", Islam, and even migrants, in Europe as well. Because the data is shady, I'm mostly left with anecdotal evidence, such as:
  • FBI alters training materials to remove links between terrorism, Islam, and the Muslim brotherhood (link)
  • Sweden ignores ethnicities of convicted criminals in crime statistics (link)
  • Cologne police remove the word "rape" from reports after New Years' sexual assaults that were connected with the EU migrant crisis (link)
  • Rotherham sex abuse covered up, 1400 victims, blamed on fear of political correctness (link)
  • I could go on... but I have slow internet and searching for these links is taking a lot of time.
Basically, I have very little confidence in any data regarding crimes committed by the left, by migrants, etc. etc. The big cases, like the Cologne assaults, and Rotherham... tend to be the top of the pyramid, that draw all the public attention. The way these sorts of problems tend to be structured societies, is that you will have a small number of big incidents like those, and larger numbers of smaller "isolated" incidents which draw less attention.

There were also some reports, such as the Europol TeSat report, which showed left-wing terrorism in 2nd place after Islamic terrorism. But I'm beginning to run out of energy to look for it now.


6.
Quote:
The evidence appears to belie Donald Trump’s rhetoric, however
Here we go, down the same rabbit hole.

I made a thread here before on this topic. It wasn't a "Muslim ban". Obama passed the legislation which granted the acting president the executive power to enforce such a travel ban... yet few of the same people wailing at Trump today, questioned Obama's actions when he did that.

Trump was also limited by the same legislation to only those 7 countries that he hit with the travel ban. If he could have, I'm sure he would have targeted those countries that were the statistically greatest exporters of terrorism, and perhaps omitted some of those 7 countries. Or maybe he'd have gone "happy hour" and banned everyone, we'll never know.

The way I see it, Trump issued the travel ban, as a statement of policy reversal. A not-so-subtle way of denouncing "open border" politics that has been becoming increasingly mainstream in America, and with which Europe had already gone full retard. It's a "culture war" he is waging against the left.

I can't think of any other major reason. It's true, the travel ban is relatively ineffective in what it is claimed to meant to achieve.

It comes across as petty as first sight, but when I thought about it some more, the "culture war" is about as important as the mainstream politics. Culture shapes politics, and this "open border" politics worked well only up to a point in Europe. Beyond that point, it capsized.

I'm done. Too tired.

.


"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.



Last edited by BDF; July 16th 2017 at 10:55 PM.
   
1 user(s) liked this post or found it helpful.
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
MWF Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
MWF's Avatar
 
Name: Robert
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Location: The Best City On Earth

Posts: 1,708
Join Date: May 22nd 2010

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - July 17th 2017, 03:02 AM

You responded to abibliophobe instead, but I felt like throwing something out there anyway.
There's really just one major disagreement I have with what you said. One of the reasons the judges ruled that Trump's travel ban discriminated based on religion is because Donald Trump himself said this during the campaign: "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." He SAID it, it's not like the media or the judges just made a vague assumption that the ban was Islamaphobic. Also, the idea that Trump and Obama's travel bans are the same thing is a false equivalency. Obama delayed refugee processing in direct response to a failed terror plot in Kentucky. The people planning an attack were refugees from Iraq, and the intelligence agencies found evidence that they fought against us in Iraq after they had already entered the US. The ban was used while the intelligence agencies tightened up the vetting process and increased coordination between the agencies for future vetting. And despite the ban in 2011, refugees were still admitted into the US every month, but at a lower rate. Trump, on the other hand, just made a pre-emptive blanket ban that said all people from certain countries couldn't go to the US. It's not the same thing. And this is just my opinion, but there's no reason for me to believe that Trump would have stuck with just a 90 day ban. Our wars would still be going on after 90 days, signaling that we need more time to "figure out what the hell is going on". For what it's worth, I think the vetting process we do have is thorough enough to keep us as safe as possible. Notes on the false equivalency: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ration-restri/
A lot of right-wingers on the internet say that if it was a Muslim ban, it would include Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. However, Trump would never get away with that. For one, that's way too obvious. He'd never get away with banning Indonesia because there's no justification at all to do it. Trump still has business ties to the Saudis and the other Gulf States so he wouldn't ban them either. Another thing is... Donald Trump is not an intelligent person. Some leaks from the White House say that Trump watches about 5 or 6 hours of cable news a day. Think how stupid that is: you have the most powerful position in the world, and basically more info at your request than anyone else in the world, and you decide to get your information from corporate news stations for FIVE HOURS. Jesus, man. And researchers who hear him speak say that he speaks with a third grade level. This just isn't a person who has enough intelligence or political savvy to successfully pull off any ban at all. I would be astounded if he could point to half the countries he banned on a map. Steve Bannon (who had more influence early on, before the infighting between Trump's staff) almost certainly crafted this, figuring that the ban toed the line just enough to be legal. Trump, if left to his own devices, probably would have tried to ban just Muslims, without even hiding it. I regret freaking out and assuming that Donald Trump would be the second coming of Hitler when he got elected; he's just too fucking stupid.

As a minor sidenote, Judicial Watch (first bullet point) is considered to have a far-right bias, with gems such as
"Did the IRS Fast Track tax exempt status for after school Satan clubs?" No.
"DHS quietly moving, releasing van loads of illegal aliens away from border" No.
"Islamic refugee with gas pipeline plans arrested in New Mexico border county" No.
"Is ISIS on the US-Mexico border?" Jesus Christ... No.
I'm not attacking the site just to avoid the content of the discussion. I'm not getting into the content because I don't actually know if what they said is true or not. But given the context that Judicial Watch writes alarmist, incorrect articles all the time, I would take their articles with a grain of salt.


Wish I lived in Canada. UPDATE, NOV. 9th, 2016: This statement has become even more appropriate.
I vow that I will attack this endeavor with an enthusiasm unknown to mankind. Jim Harbaugh

"Being an adult sucks. The only positives are weed, sex, and cars, and I have none of those right now." -Me

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hatred cannot drive out hatred; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King Jr.
   
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
Kyburg Offline
Member
Not a n00b
**
 
Kyburg's Avatar
 
Age: 20
Gender: Male

Posts: 71
Join Date: January 9th 2015

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - July 17th 2017, 08:28 PM

I didn't watch your video, as it was too long. However, I don't believe that it is "the left" that is afraid of free speech and debate, but rather that both the radical left and radical right are afraid of free speech and debate. In my experience, radicals from all over the political spectrum try to quash debate because it is an alternative viewpoint to theirs, which is unacceptable to any radical group. The quickest way to present one's narrative as the truth is to ensure that it is the only narrative. So, I don't think that it is fair to say "the left", as it paints a very wide brush over a huge group of people.

Regarding the left losing elections, I don't think that's entirely true. After all, May lost her Parliamentary majority in the last UK elections. She had to form a coalition to continue.
   
2 user(s) liked this post or found it helpful.
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
ThisWillDestroyYou's Avatar
 
Name: Michael
Gender: Male
Location: USA

Posts: 1,050
Join Date: July 5th 2011

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - July 20th 2017, 08:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BDF View Post
There is a reason why political correctness has been endorsed by many people on the left... and this debate unintentionally illustrates this point. Sorry to say, but today, many of the left's attitudes, policies and slogans are simply indefensible, because they subvert even common sense itself. Another fantastic and concise case of double-think that occurred to me recently recently is...

... how can the left support raising the minimum wage, while at the same time supporting open borders and the importation of cheap labor into the economy?

It just doesn't stick, regardless of whether you're for or against either of those things, or even both of them. Sorry. Importing cheap labor lowers wages, so you want to at the same time raise the minimum wage??? How? Where does the difference in money come from? Most businesses operate with a slim profit margin, and it's safe to assume that the average profit margin of businesses across a country is comparable to the growth in GDP... that's about 1-5% depending on the country (in the West). Most businesses don't have enough spare money lying around to simply "pay more", and multi-billion banks that can afford it tend not to hire low skill labor.
The economics is simple. Raising minimum wage increases purchasing power, which increases company profits. There have been countless studies on this topic that prove raising the minimum wage helps the economy and doesn't create job loss (as once thought). Denying this is just ignorance.

https://itep.org/the-35-percent-corporate-tax-myth/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-s...ood-economics/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-...b_7152976.html

Opening the border creates more profit for businesses, boosts the economy, and contributes to more taxes being payed. Nor does it drive wages down.

https://www.worldfinance.com/infrast...global-economy
http://fortune.com/2016/04/17/immigration-open-borders/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.d1db21007eb8
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e557d85b27ca

In fact closing the borders causes wage loss.

http://www.epi.org/publication/bp255/
https://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/...-economics.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by BDF View Post
It loses debates, and loses elections. And when it does win elections it ruins the economy instead by forcing people to work on the black market to earn a living (no tax revenue, dangerous, abusive, exploitative employers, unregulated, illegal, etc.). While working on the black market, they are officially unemployed, so probably claiming welfare as well. And the social / community problems that branch off from all of this. And isn't all of this precisely what has been happening???
This argument is repetitive, and there's no evidence that it's true.

https://www.americanimmigrationcounc...d-unemployment
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/doe...ion-cost-jobs/


Quote:
Originally Posted by BDF View Post
Political correctness on the other hand, aims to avoid and often even proactively discourage debates on some of these topics altogether. It's increasingly transparent why this is. The results for the audience after the debate were a landslide, and if I remember right, these are New Yorkers... some of the most liberal people on the planet. Just imagine the travesty of more such people being exposed to even more "right wing propaganda" and "hate speech".

Ugh. If it's "hate speech" to say that "Islam isn't a religion of peace", or that "open borders raise crime rates"... then you're obviously losing the fight against so called "hate speech".
No. It doesn't.

Political correctness tends to look at global trends. They listen to the experts who perform studies, research, and experiments within their respective fields. We trust their data over rhetoric and fear. We choose to trust people to do their jobs (you know, the data they collect and analyze for a living...), rather than relying on our own perceptions, intuition, and thoughts. It's how society progresses. The same rhetoric towards immigration is very similar to the rhetoric against woman suffrage. Check out a history book sometime.

I think the reason why the left don't care to debate many of these issues is because the data speaks for itself. The right just wants to beat the dead horse with a stick with shiny and pretty rhetoric that is easy to convince others with (but is typically ungrounded and has been disproven), rather than looking at raw facts. Typically, that's why I stopped responding to posts like these. The information is out there. Just pull your head out from under the covers and do some research rather than just relying on debates, and whatever you think/feel. Look up data, statistics, and facts. They tend to hold volumes over anything else. The real question is when will the right start accepting data over politics.

The right is like a broken record.


"For small creatures such as we the vastness is bearable only through love."
- Carl Sagan

Last edited by ThisWillDestroyYou; July 21st 2017 at 03:32 AM.
   
1 user(s) liked this post or found it helpful.
  (#9 (permalink)) Old
MWF Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
MWF's Avatar
 
Name: Robert
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Location: The Best City On Earth

Posts: 1,708
Join Date: May 22nd 2010

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - July 21st 2017, 12:30 AM

Actually, why can't you just crack down on employers who pay below the minimum wage? In the US, large employers can get away with everything under the sun so many people are paid below the minimum wage. So why not actually go after them instead of the worker? Like how about creating a fine on the employer for each illegal worker, and have that fine cost them more than the wages of a regular employee? That'll incentivize them to just pay a normal wage for everybody.
Granted, I don't know what the current penalty is for illegal labor in the US. But whatever it is is probably lightly enforced because giant companies can legally buy off politicians.


Wish I lived in Canada. UPDATE, NOV. 9th, 2016: This statement has become even more appropriate.
I vow that I will attack this endeavor with an enthusiasm unknown to mankind. Jim Harbaugh

"Being an adult sucks. The only positives are weed, sex, and cars, and I have none of those right now." -Me

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hatred cannot drive out hatred; only love can do that." -Martin Luther King Jr.
   
  (#10 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - July 21st 2017, 08:09 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by MWF View Post
You responded to abibliophobe instead, but I felt like throwing something out there anyway.
I didn't really have much to add or to take away from what you said. I had too few disagreements for it to be worth my time objecting and explaining myself. Although to say that Islamic terrorism is 85% the responsibility of the West is being heavy-handed. For example, after Iraq was sacked, they were left to their own devices. We didn't install a puppet government or satellite sate. Perhaps we should have, in hindsight. What instead happened, is these people kicked out and ostracized everyone from the old regime, effectively forcing them to form separatist groups. They did that to themselves.

Poland faced a similar choice after the fall of communism in 1991. They instead chose to put up with these corrupt old farts, and although Poland was relatively slow in progressing out of the gutter it was in, it was stable.

And Saudi Arabia is very influential. More than 15%. If I remember right, the majority of Mosques in the UK are funded by them (although I do not remember the source or statistics). And Mosques aren't the only things they pour money into.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MWF View Post
I don't know what your country's like, but American conservatives live off of double-speak
This is why I despise partisanship, which is basically an assumption that "one side is largely correct, by virtue of being who they are". And yet, this is precisely what partisanship leads to, and with more time it just becomes more ingrained in people. I find it impossible to honestly defend someone or something, if even a small part of me believes it to be false (which doesn't mean I don't get things wrong sometimes), even if it is with "good intentions". This unfortunately applies to my personal life as well, which has often caused me problems with people. Like, I find it really hard to defend my mother when someone starts yelling obscenities at her in traffic (and her yelling back) because she cut across lanes on a roundabout without indicating nearly causing an accident. Anyway.

Still, I have observed the frequency of so called "double-speak" to be higher on the left than on the right. At least that is my experience. I interact with younger people on average (like most of us here do), who obviously know how to use the internet, and get their news from various sources, and among this group of people I've interacted with... young conservatives tend to talk more sense than people on the left.

I think the reasons for this are, that people who isolate themselves from opposing view points (intentionally or not, by simply being older, less computer-literate and more stuck-in-their-ways, or by intentionally blocking conservatives on Facebook), or only expose themselves to opposing viewpoints in order to create an "attack-front" against them for virtue points among their own peers... end up locked-in to so called "echo chambers", basically reaffirming their own viewpoints without ever questioning them themselves, or allowing other people to question them either (simply "attacking" your opposition doesn't count as exposing oneself to opposing viewpoints). I think we're all guilty of this sometimes, but among younger people which I more often interact with, it is conservatives who are in the minority and who are effectively forced to interact with people on the left and so end up being exposed to more diverse opinions and tend to talk more sense.

Older conservatives which I've occasionally spoken with have at times been very frustrating to talk with though. Them: "no more migration", Me: "surely, no more open borders", Them: "no, no more migration whatsoever", Me: "why?", Them: "because they hate us" (in very abbreviated terms).


Makes me want to chew my fucking arm off. I'm not surprised with what some people on the far-left have become, if these were the people who raised them.

P.S. I wouldn't count "alt-right" as being conservatives. Just to clarify. And b
y "them" I don't mean all older conservatives, or not even most, but certainly many more of them are this way than young conservatives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MWF View Post
For what it's worth, I think the vetting process we do have is thorough enough to keep us as safe as possible. Notes on the false equivalency: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ration-restri/
Good article. I like facts. But to get down to the meat of the matter... I think with the very high correlation between the migration from Islamic-majority nations, terrorism incidents and other associated generic "problems", certain relatively drastic measures (by today's standards, not the 1930s) are justified. The following is more of a response to the content of the article, than you personally:

We may not be able to pin down the reason for Trump's travel ban to any single specific event or localized group of events (like with Obama and previous presidents), because the problem has moved beyond being a single specific event such as 9/11. America has a population of 3 million Muslims (1% of the population). The UK alone has 3 million Muslims (5% of the population) and growing, and similar proportions apply to the rest of Western Europe. Western Europe at this stage, is experiencing "terrorist incidents" (not necessarily successful attacks) reported at an average rate of 1 every 2 weeks with related arrests increased by about 500% in the past 5 years, and most of these are home-grown terrorists of foreign origin (1 or more parents was foreign). Oddly, zero Jihadist-terror related arrests were reported by the UK, which is either a mistake in the report, or something more sinister (link to full report). This is an inter-generational problem, therefore responding to single specific events as and when they happen, when there is a far greater trend, is like applying band aids on a machete wound. With the current state of affairs, I respect America for trying to halt this demographic change, until the problems surrounding Islam and the Middle East in general are stabilized (or as Trump put it: "figure out what the hell is going on"), even if this takes decades.

Of course, responding with blanket policies like Trump's, risks overgeneralizing the situation and so responding with more force than is warranted... which I am always on the look out for in people, and I oppose. There is a lot of emotion and anger radiating from people on the right that I've spoken with, in part (and not unreasonably) inspired by terrorist attacks, but also the various crime waves in Europe that have been found to be strongly linked with foreign nationals from Muslim-majority countries. These heated emotional reactions are leading some people on the right to call for very dangerous policies. But I don't want to digress into that right now. If we don't want these sorts of views and policies going mainstream, we need to address some of the real problems that are provoking these responses, instead of rushing to blame every evil deed in the world on "Western chauvinism and capitalism" and continuously antagonizing these people.

Basically, my position is, nobody has a default "right" to travel to any country. The "right" to travel to a country is issued by that country, usually in the form of a Visa. Ergo, Trump's travel ban in my view doesn't violate any rights, although I am a strong believer in that contracts should not be broken, aka, an already issued visa shouldn't be retracted unless the person did something to violate the original contract, not the contract which you altered after people already agreed to it (you don't get to just "move the goalposts" after you made the rules). If it is an "abuse of human rights" to deny people entry into America, then would it also be an "abuse of human rights" if those countries denied Americans entry into their countries (although I'm not aware of there being such a trend)? Would Iceland be abusing human rights, if it denied permanent Visas to foreign nationals, even though their entire population is that of a single average town? If not, then why?

If Trump were to instead advocate for the deportation of 3 million Muslims... I would take the absolutely opposite view. From all I've seen, he has not advocated for such deportations though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MWF View Post
A lot of right-wingers on the internet say that if it was a Muslim ban, it would include Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. However, Trump would never get away with that. For one, that's way too obvious.
Well, for one, those people don't know what they're talking about. Saudi Arablia and Indonesia were not countries listed in the body of regulations passed by Obama. Legally, Trump was simply not allowed to issue a travel ban on those countries in the first place, so hypothesizing alternative scenarios is pretty pointless.

About Trump's business links with Saudis, and him being an "idiot"... these are mostly just personal attacks. I'm not going to defend Trump (I generally don't waste my time trying to defend anyone from such attacks because most people should be able to defend themselves, unless they are crippled in some way which Trump isn't), but you should know that in discussions with people of opposing points of views, these sorts of personal attacks don't really make any sort of impression on the other side. It just polarizes the debate even more.

With that said, I envy the amount of information which Trump has available to him. The media is mostly shit, and I'm at the end of my fucking wits sometimes trying to discern the facts. Most of the time they give you only half the facts, and leave people to "fill in the gaps" with their own personal biases, thereby avoiding direct accusations of lying, while misleading people anyway. Like the article I responded to in an earlier post, that just skipped a track and conveniently failed to point out that by the statistics they themselves quoted, Muslims are nearly 50x more likely to be involved in "terrorist incidents".


Quote:
Originally Posted by MWF View Post
As a minor sidenote, Judicial Watch (first bullet point) is considered to have a far-right bias
Yes, I'm aware of it. I was looking for an article produced by a website with a similar name, but couldn't find it. I was tired and ran out of patience trying, so posted this one instead. I read through it quickly to make sure the content was in line with what I already knew.

.


"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.



Last edited by BDF; July 22nd 2017 at 12:05 PM.
   
  (#11 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - July 21st 2017, 03:42 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyburg View Post
I didn't watch your video, as it was too long. However, I don't believe that it is "the left" that is afraid of free speech and debate, but rather that both the radical left and radical right are afraid of free speech and debate. In my experience, radicals from all over the political spectrum try to quash debate because it is an alternative viewpoint to theirs, which is unacceptable to any radical group. The quickest way to present one's narrative as the truth is to ensure that it is the only narrative. So, I don't think that it is fair to say "the left", as it paints a very wide brush over a huge group of people.

Regarding the left losing elections, I don't think that's entirely true. After all, May lost her Parliamentary majority in the last UK elections. She had to form a coalition to continue.
You're right. I occasionally get a bit impulsive with my words and overgeneralize things. Sometimes I do it intentionally to provoke one side or the other. I don't remember what my motive was the day I wrote the original post, but I assume it's part of the reason why Michael responded the way he did.

And Theresa may is a brute. What she did in those elections was try to force through a mandate to pass all sorts of other laws and policies which the vast majority of people hate. I've moved on from this topic so don't feel like revisiting it, but if you're interested in a breakdown of some of the reasons why the election got flipped on it's head, here is a good source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnkfHr-syg4

Basically, she took the strength of her position for granted, and so assumed that people wouldn't turn against her if she turned against them first.

I'll respond to other people under this thread eventually, but I'm leaving today for the weekend. I'm coming for you though.



lol

.


"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.


   
  (#12 (permalink)) Old
MsNobleEleanor Offline
Courting Chivalrous Fidelity

I can't get enough
*********
 
MsNobleEleanor's Avatar
 
Gender: Female
Location: Courting Our Devotion Syncing

Posts: 3,017
Blog Entries: 1426
Join Date: December 29th 2011

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - August 10th 2017, 10:21 AM

OP requested thread to be opened to furture express their view points and opinions on this topic.


Have questions or would like to chat send me a PM
+
Senior Article Editor | Newsletter Editor | Resource Editor
Outreach Ambassador | Social Media Guru
Community Moderator | Forum Moderator

   
  (#13 (permalink)) Old
Member
Average Joe
***
 
formerly chevyguy350's Avatar
 
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Location: us

Posts: 100
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: February 27th 2009

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - August 17th 2017, 02:12 PM

As an anarchist, i find the statist left and right are both afraid of debate. Ironicaly, republicans call me a filthy liberal and dems call me an agressive right wing repub. I think you all need to get ur shit together. Lol.


"Smooth seas do not a skilled sailor make."-mark twain
  Send a message via Skype™ to formerly chevyguy350 
1 user(s) liked this post or found it helpful.
  (#14 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - August 29th 2017, 09:51 PM

Ok. It has been a long time, but my life fell into chaos for a while. My laptop was stolen (I got it back), followed by family crisis, followed by a leg infection & allergy from a wasp sting that knocked me out for half a week. But I'm back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisWillDestroyYou View Post
The economics is simple. Raising minimum wage increases purchasing power, which increases company profits. There have been countless studies on this topic that prove raising the minimum wage helps the economy and doesn't create job loss (as once thought). Denying this is just ignorance.
To be honest, the economics part of this thread was tangential to the main discussion. But I'll answer it, since I've had far more than enough time to think about it and have a few points to make. And I'm not going to even attempt to work through the avalanche of articles you tried to bury me with. I did it earlier in this thread with just one article, and it already took hours. I don't have this sort of time. If you have a point to make, make your point, instead of offloading a whole semester's worth of literature on someone. Don't be lazy. Pull something specific out of those articles and we can discuss those points, instead of pasting in a wall of web addresses you have ready-packaged in some word document. I don't even understand what the hell the first link you posted has to do with minimum wages or migration. So, addressing precisely what you said:

Yes, raising the minimum wage can in some respects increase the purchasing power of a community, and in effect "re-distribute" money and wealth towards other businesses or sections of the community (or society), that might need it more in order to develop economically. You are wrong however to state outright that "raising minimum wage increases purchasing power, which increases company profits", as if it is an absolute certainty that this will be the case every time.

How much precisely do you think we can raise the minimum wage by, before it starts having a negative effect? $10? $20? $50? You make no allowance for this kind of gradation, and my original point was that raising the minimum wage, while at the same time letting in more cheap labor, doesn't work.

I was also wrong, in absolute terms. Technically, it probably doesn't work only most of the time. I already explained why earlier, but I will break it down further. Here is a work-down of how raising minimum wages might redistribute wealth, how it might harm some people, possibly slow the economy, or speed it up:
  1. If you increase the minimum wage, you are effectively forcing employers to pay more for the same amount of labor.
  2. In this scenario, you are not directly "producing" more of anything, which is what actually drives GDP (although there is mixed evidence that some workers might be incentivized to work harder if they receive higher pay prior, note: mixed evidence, so for simplicity I'll assume at this stage that it doesn't)
  3. This artificially increases the cash flow, without increasing the productivity, which may in fact to some small degree drive inflation due to an increase in the money supply (meaning your money is worth less)
  4. This increase in cash flow & cost comes at the expense of the affected business owners and/or shareholders, who may up to a point be able to sustain such increased costs.
    1. If the increased costs fall within the original profit margins of the business, then the company continues growing (although more slowly) while more of their income is redistributed to their employees. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and if we're talking about businesses with very large and excessive reserves of money sitting idle (which is actually rarely the case), then it is probably a good thing. Note: most businesses like to reinvest their profits into themselves, in order to continue growing, hiring more people, etc. We can probably agree that real problems arise when businesses have such excessive money at their disposal that executives start awarding themselves $20 million bonuses, instead of investing the money in growing further, because they're already so big that there is little more "growing" they can do.
    2. If the increased costs exceed the original profit margins, then the only way for the business to cover these increased costs is to either liquidate and sell their assets, fire workers, or take loans (often a combination of the 3). This causes a fall in the value of the business, a fall in the value of it's listed stock prices, and on a larger scale, potential economic recession, or at least a slowing of the economy. If we're also dealing with a situation in which the business is unable to sell it's assets at a reasonable price because there is an oversupply of said assets due to other businesses following the same pattern, then we almost certainly have a recession, and means of production (assets) sitting idle. This would include labor sitting idle as well. This causes productivity to fall, and the nation's GDP to decrease correspondingly
  5. Of course means of production sitting idle applies in precisely the same principle to businesses or individuals, who have such excessive wealth that they can afford for their means of production to sit idle. They can afford to accumulate wealth, while not reinvesting any of it. This is a frequent strategy used by businesses that have monopolized an industry. They will for example buy up all the available means of production, just to price out competitors, and leave the buildings they bought empty, and leave those means of production sitting idle, in order to reduce supply and increase the value of whatever it is they produce. Raising the minimum wage, might be just one strategy a government could use to combat this. It also depends on what kind of business we're talking about. I don't think banks and insurers for example are affected much by minimum wage hikes, since most of their employees earn more than that in the first place.
    • In this case, it is almost certain that redistributive economic policies aimed at trimming down the size of such a businesses, will "liberate" resources that are being hoarded, and redistribute wealth in such a way to the rest of the population so that it actually ensures greater economic growth.
    • This scenario does not apply in most cases. Most businesses are small/medium size businesses with competitors, none of whom can afford to hoard resources this way. They have to compete with other businesses, and do so by reinvesting their profits and using all means available to them to get ahead of the competition. Impacting such businesses with redistributive policies only cripples them.
I hope that's good enough for you. I won't quote articles written by journalists, or blog posts on the internet as sources for this. This is my own acquired knowledge, accumulated in part through an interest in economics. Standard economics text books will describe similar patterns as I have done. Crash Course Economics on YouTube is a good learning tool I use to refresh my memory on these things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisWillDestroyYou View Post
Opening the border creates more profit for businesses, boosts the economy, and contributes to more taxes being payed. Nor does it drive wages down.

In fact closing the borders causes wage loss.
Now, following on from what I said, it doesn't take much thinking to figure out what adding more labor to a market in which people are already being fired from their jobs, will achieve. It will just achieve more unemployment, especially among those people of lower socioeconomic status. People with no jobs and no income of course need to be fed and housed somehow, leading to more welfare pay-outs, etc. Yes, I'm aware that migrants don't only "earn money" (aka take money of the the system), that they also spend it and pay taxes. But to spend it and pay taxes, they have to earn money in the first place, especially given the fact that most migrants who come to wealthier, Western economies, do not bring much money with them to start with.

One of the reports you yourself posted (https://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/...-economics.pdf) states in the opening paragraphs that "an increase in the number of workers leads to lower wages". Yes, it does. So what the hell do you expect raising the minimum wage will achieve in this scenario? The same report also clearly states on the first page that "Immigration also has a fiscal impact — taxes paid by immigrants minus the costs they create for government (aka, welfare spending, security, etc.). The fiscal impact is a separate question from the labor market impact. This report does not address the size of the fiscal impact." More on that below.

Here is a report written by several highly qualified economists, on the effects of low-skilled migration on the UK economy:
Main out-take (to save you time):
Quote:
"under the UK's welfare system an unskilled migrant worker on the minimum wage costs the taxpayer in the region of between 57 (for a single person) and 29 000 a year (for a worker with a family)"
The "Liberal Democrat" party in the UK indirectly affirmed such costs, by stating directly that the UK should take in 50 000 Syrian refugees, which will cost the country 4.3 billion (you only need to reed the first line):
I am not going to go into the details of whether asserted "Syrian refugees" actually are refugees, or are even Syrian in the first place. Suffice to say, most of the "Syrian refugees" that have arrived in Europe so far over the past year and half, don't tick either of those boxes.

The details of the situation in America are different, but the mechanics of basic supply and demand, spending and profit, are the same.

There is only one circumstance under which I would support 100% free open borders migration: no welfare state whatsoever. Then everyone would naturally be forced to work for everything they want and have. Yes, this might (in theory) indeed then be a huge era of massive competitive economic growth. You see, you cannot claim that you are a "free market economist" and that you "support economic growth" simply because you "support open borders", if you at the same time ignore the moderating and often destabilizing effects which a welfare state and raised minimum wages would have on such a scheme. After skimming the articles you posted, most appear to do precisely that: ignore the effects of welfare and minimum wage laws. Perhaps those things just happen not to be big issues in America. Although I remember a statistic from somewhere that 50% of all immigrant households in the US receive welfare payments, compared to only 30% of native households. https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-I...ive-Households

I actually find it funny how some people on the left try and pass themselves off as "free market enthusiasts" by virtue of them supporting open borders. There are few things more ironic on such a massive scale in today's politics. The left is the champion of social programs, welfare, and wealth redistribution... the polar opposite of "free market economics". Who precisely is this even meant to fool? It's like a person pulling on an animal costume at a football game and trying to pass himself off as the real thing. Bruh. All that this "open borders" politics appears to be motivated by in fact, at it's heart, is even more wealth redistribution.

I don't think such a 100% free market economy would even work. Maybe it would work on paper, like communism does. In truth, some welfare, and some redistributive economic policies are necessary, if only to provide equal opportunities to children from a young age, and act as a shock absorber against certain portions of society getting too far ahead of everyone else. And if you have a welfare scheme in place, then you need restrictions (such as borders) on who is allowed to claim money from it, otherwise the costs of maintaining the said welfare scheme easily become a burden rather than a sensible policy of reinvestment/redistribution.


Yes, I am aware that many economists would argue that "open borders" and "migration" increase average wages in the long-term, and I understand the free-market mechanics of it. I am also aware that many economists would argue that welfare and minimum wages are anti-competitive... which they generally are. Combining both of these schemes is ridiculous. It doesn't follow any reputed economic model or theory I have ever heard of. The closest corollary I can think of, is it might be based on the ideas of intersectionality. Aka, allow any and everyone to come to the country, then hit the existing population with redistributive policies in order to pay for the cost of accommodating the newcomers, because "white privilege". I seriously cannot think of any other way to rationalize this. Post me a serious link to an article or report that reasonably argues that "open borders" + "welfare" + "minimum wages" is a good combination for economic growth of the country and it's existing population. And I say existing population, because the government in charge is elected by the existing population, and so is answerable to it. Our government is not answerable to some however many millions or even tens of millions (or potentially hundreds of millions in the future) people from other countries who never voted or worked here. Once they have worked, and contributed a certain amount on our terms, following our rules, then yes, they deserve a voice in shaping those rules. Not before that.

I also find it unironic that you removed a part of your comment where you criticized those who are unemployed because they "refuse to work and blame migrants for their poverty". The technical term for such people would be "discouraged workers", not "unemployed". It so happens that unemployment rates are the lowest for white people, and highest for black people in America. Welfare payouts are obviously strongly correlated with this. I was not able to find statistics that describe the quantities of "discouraged workers" in relation to ethnic backgrounds or social groups (other than gender and age groups). I have no reason to believe that the correlations are any different though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisWillDestroyYou View Post
This argument is repetitive, and there's no evidence that it's true.
Of course, the thing about "black markets" is that they are unregulated, and difficult to attribute statistics to. Most of the effort is focused on monitoring things such as prostitution and the drug trade on the black markets, rather than low-skill labor. It follows from logic however, that first generation low-skill migrants who generally aren't entitled to welfare schemes and may have trouble finding jobs (due to language barriers for example)... still need to live and earn money, and will do so by whatever means necessary and available to them. Working on the black market is one such option. Those who are entitled to welfare schemes will of course take advantage of this at well (such as EU migrants from poorer states).

The rest is self-explanatory. Black market labor, poor working conditions, low wages, poor living conditions, deflated property prices in affected areas etc. Desperate people trying to make a living will do desperate things, and resort to crimes if necessary, even if they're not necessarily serious crimes. Especially if they're out of their depth, trying to keep up with living costs in an expensive city.

Again, I clicked on both the links you posted in reply to this part of my comment. Neither of them talk about the black market, and instead talk generically about the relationship recorded levels of employment and immigration. The black market applies precisely to employment that isn't recorded, and often illegal immigration, although it may also apply to legal immigration if the numbers are high enough that people can't find work legally.
__________________________________________________ __

I will not be replying to this specific topic on economics under this thread anymore. If you want to continue the discussion, start a new thread, and I might join in. The main topic of this thread was political correctness, freedom of speech etc.

I will respond to that part tomorrow or the day after. I've spent nearly 3 hours writing and checking what I have so far, and it's enough for one day.

.


"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.



Last edited by BDF; August 30th 2017 at 11:44 PM.
   
  (#15 (permalink)) Old
City17 Offline
Crazy Bastard
Welcome me, I'm new!
*
 
City17's Avatar
 
Name: Hamed
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Location: Sydney

Posts: 22
Join Date: April 28th 2017

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - August 30th 2017, 04:46 AM

We are currently under a campaign for an against same-sex marriage and I have noticed that we cannot have a debate unless we are willing to hear the other side of the argument. I am used to hearing the arguments against same-sex marriage and if people claiming that their priority is to support and retain Christian values is enough to make you want to burn acres, then you are not fit for discussion on the issue.

People on the left side of politics may not want to get involved in open discussion because they know that it would open up a large amount of hatred and passion. I think most people are just aware of it, and they are not going to bother shutting down debate, because they know they just are not allowed to.

It is worth noting that I am a political centrist.
   
  (#16 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - August 30th 2017, 06:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by City17 View Post
People on the left side of politics may not want to get involved in open discussion because they know that it would open up a large amount of hatred and passion.
I have been unable to find a concise, unanimous definition, of what "hate speech" is. It certainly has no legal definition. Neither did it have an official definition recognized by any major publication (last time I checked).

The only common thread I have been able to find among the vast majority of people who accuse others of "hate speech", is the intention to shut those people up. The other integral part of this picture, is the often vivid and frothing hatred and disgust visible in the faces of the people yelling "hate speech" at others. All of this creates the impression that when these morons yell "hate speech", all they're in fact doing is projecting their own hatred onto other people.

In other words, the people yelling "hate speech" are the ones who are being hateful. Most of the time.

This is the only common thread I've been able to find in relation to the use of the phrase "hate speech". Maybe a more concise definition can be crafted from this eventually.
______________________

I mean, it's fking obvious that when you say something like "Islam isn't a religion of peace", and back your statement up with various data... and all the other person can do is yell at you that you're being "hateful" while their friends are setting dustbins on fire and threatening other people, beating them up (ANTIFA)...

... it's obvious who is actually filled with hate. Real hate, uninhibited rage and fury. The only comparable example I'm aware of that has been perpetrated by the right, are the Charlottesville riots. I've lost count by now of how many such riots have been initiated by the far-left to this day.

And there was a lone-wolf staged incident during which some right-wing activists tried to shut down a play in New York by calling it "hate speech". Nothing really happened as a result.

So I've lost a lot of respect for people who consistently accuse others of "hate speech". The accusation no longer carries any weight. It's been overused. Boy crying wolf. The far-left has burned up it's credibility by yelling "hate speech" and "racist" at practically anyone who disagrees with them on key points of their agenda, alienating people while doing so, and now that the alt-right is growing in response to their provocations (who are genuinely hateful and racist), hardly anybody will believe the far-left or sympathize with them when they get the piss beaten out of them in the streets. This is observable in current events.

It is irony of fate that the far-left created precisely the environment in which the alt-right can thrive now. The alt-right wasn't around 10 years ago. Or 20 years ago. Actually, it started spreading online shortly after the 2008 crash... so nearly 10 years. The alt-right isn't some centuries-old conspiracy, that has been lurking in the background, waiting for it's moment to strike. They're too stupid to accomplish that. They're just a spontaneous reaction against even greater idiots on the left who have been rioting on a regular basis for the past 5 years.

.



"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.



Last edited by BDF; August 30th 2017 at 11:37 PM.
   
  (#17 (permalink)) Old
Kyburg Offline
Member
Not a n00b
**
 
Kyburg's Avatar
 
Age: 20
Gender: Male

Posts: 71
Join Date: January 9th 2015

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - August 30th 2017, 08:14 PM

There are legal definitions of hate speech, you just have to look for them. My country has a definition in both our Constituion and supporting legislation.

I disagree with your point on hate speech. It is a serious problem when anyone says something derogatory about another group, because it is a sweeping generalization which results in unfair treatment. Truth (even if the claims are true, which usually they are not) is not a defence under law. E.g. Gay men are bad because they spread HIV. It is true that, according to statistics (https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overv...nds/statistics) homosexual men are one of the largest group of HIV sufferers in the US, and they are more likely than heterosexual men to contract HIV, but that doesn't justify that kind of speech. Do not judge others before you actually look at their grievances. There are people who cry wolf about it, but that doesn't give anyone the right to generalize.

What current events do you refer to when you say no one will sympathies with the far left who are beaten up in the streets? That's not my perspective. No one should be beaten up in the streets, even racists like the Charlottesville far-right crowd. They shouldn't be allowed to spew their filth either, but they still have rights. We mustn't stoop to their level.

Are you familiar with confirmation bias? You claim that there are uncountable violent riots by the far left, but only Charlottesville by the far right. I disagree. Your bias against the left will cause you to draw that conclusion. Read this:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/u-s-s...ht-every-year/
   
  (#18 (permalink)) Old
BDF Offline
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
BDF's Avatar
 
Name: BDF
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Location: Europe

Posts: 2,523
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: January 28th 2009

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - August 30th 2017, 11:22 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyburg View Post
There are legal definitions of hate speech, you just have to look for them. My country has a definition in both our Constituion and supporting legislation.
A quote would be nice. I don't know what country you're from. And actually, you're probably right. I got ahead of myself. I looked up the law in the UK before, and it has some paragraphs on hate speech. I obviously think they're crap. They resemble something of the form: "if you feel you have been offended, and you are part of a minority group, then it may be hate speech". Sorry, I'm tired now and can't be bothered to search for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyburg View Post
I disagree with your point on hate speech. It is a serious problem when anyone says something derogatory about another group, because it is a sweeping generalization which results in unfair treatment. Truth (even if the claims are true, which usually they are not) is not a defence under law. E.g. Gay men are bad because they spread HIV. It is true that, according to statistics (https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overv...nds/statistics) homosexual men are one of the largest group of HIV sufferers in the US, and they are more likely than heterosexual men to contract HIV, but that doesn't justify that kind of speech. Do not judge others before you actually look at their grievances. There are people who cry wolf about it, but that doesn't give anyone the right to generalize.
I think they have a right to generalize. And you have the right to call them out on it. Nobody should have the right to make either of you shut up because it is "offensive" to say "x, y, z". What is or isn't offensive is far too subjective. I find it "offensive" that BLM activist leaders have a list of demands asking white people to abandon their homes. Sure, I would like them to stop talking shit, but I'm not prepared to use force, or solicit the use of force via the government, in order to make them stop talking shit.

Let's take a typical controversial topic of today: a man decides to call himself a woman, and other people refuse (for whatever reasons) to tow the line, so continue referring him/her as a man. He/she finds it "offensive" and discriminatory. Is that "hate speech"? Is it also discrimination or "unfair treatment" for such a person to be rejected from a woman-only sports competition, such as female boxing??? Does that give him/her grounds to sue the organizers, or pursue criminal charges?

What a fking headache this is. It's much easier to just let offended people be offended, and be free to offend others in return.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyburg View Post
What current events do you refer to when you say no one will sympathies with the far left who are beaten up in the streets?
Well, I didn't say "no one". I said "hardly anybody". I didn't say it's right. I was just giving my observations. For the past 5 or so years, we have been witnessing regular left-wing riots on a national, and even international scale, and with increasing frequency. These people trash cities, beat up journalists, smash cameras, smash people's shops.

Naturally, this reduces people's sympathy towards them. And yes, it also leads to generalizations. It is not enough for the majority of a protest to be "peaceful", if they don't denounce the violent out-growths of their movements, and un-invite them from events. All it looks like is that the "peaceful" protestors may not be willing to get personally involved in the violence, but are perfectly indifferent or even happy if other people do it for them.

And this is dangerous. Because if people's sympathy for those who suffer violent assault lessens, then people on all sides are more willing to advocate for violence, more willing to support violent policies, and support oppressive governments who will enact violence on their behalf.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyburg View Post
No one should be beaten up in the streets, even racists like the Charlottesville far-right crowd. They shouldn't be allowed to spew their filth either, but they still have rights. We mustn't stoop to their level.
I agree, no one should be beaten up in the streets. I don't agree about "filth". Words alone never directly hurt anyone. The intent to harm someone, that is expressed through words, is another matter. If someone is an emotional wreck and can't take criticism without going all Yellowstone, or has an anxiety disorder, then it's unfortunate, and they could use the help of a psychotherapist... but I don't believe this is enough grounds on which to justify muting the remaining 99.9% of the population by using hate speech laws. You will come across occasional assholes in life, regardless of whether or not you outlaw certain behaviors or speech. They will find another way to torment emotionally vulnerable people, and in fact are probably more likely then to be even more subtle and manipulative about it, than if they could just talk shit openly and show their true colors in front of everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyburg View Post
Are you familiar with confirmation bias? You claim that there are uncountable violent riots by the far left, but only Charlottesville by the far right. I disagree. Your bias against the left will cause you to draw that conclusion. Read this:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/u-s-s...ht-every-year/
I know what confirmation bias is, and yes, I fall victim to it sometimes. But I've been through this topic enough times to hold my ground with reasonable certainty. The precise issue you are addressing here was covered more less by myself earlier in this thread, in my first reply. This is very similar, so I won't repeat myself.

There is a Te-Sat Europol 2016 Report that places left-wing acts of terrorism/violence significantly ahead of those committed by the right. This is in Europe however. I've not had the time to investigate America in the same depth. I'm aware though that America has a long-standing sort of "right-wing, anti-government" aspect to it's culture that Europe doesn't have whatsoever. It wouldn't surprise me if there is a corresponding degree of fanaticism to match it, which would obviously lead to higher rates of right-wing extremism.

I also was not really talking about individual violent attacks. I was referring to the widespread riots that are happening. In this specific domain (aka, riots), I'm only aware of the far-right measuring up to the consistent behavior of the far-left once, and that was in Charlottesville. If there were indeed more riots of this variety which the far-right is responsible for, then I'm interested in knowing more about them.

.


"I don't care about politics"
Then politics doesn't care about you either. Truth. You've got to make your voice heard, if you want to be listened to. But that's too logical for some people, so let me go a step further. Not making your voice heard, leaves other people free to hijack it by speaking on your behalf, even if they don't actually give a shit about you. That's politics. So, make your voice heard. That's not a quote from anywhere. That's just me.



Last edited by BDF; August 30th 2017 at 11:51 PM.
   
  (#19 (permalink)) Old
Kyburg Offline
Member
Not a n00b
**
 
Kyburg's Avatar
 
Age: 20
Gender: Male

Posts: 71
Join Date: January 9th 2015

Re: Why the left is terrified of free speech and debate - August 31st 2017, 04:26 AM

I do not wish to disclose where I live, suffice to say that our history is a result of what happens when you allow the far right too much power. For us, hate speech is possibly more serious than most other places, because it has been used to separate the population into groups at the expense of the majority. Now, we have groups on both sides of the previous divide calling for drastic changes to our society and economy because of past injustices, changes which should be enforced with violence if necessary. Things are volatile at the moment. Now we should allow people to be offended by these calls for potentially mass murder? Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury. The problem with hate speech is that people act on it. Lunatics believe it and attack people because they have been propagandised. Both the far left and far right are guilty of this.

Our definition: no person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to-
(a) be hurtful;
(b) be harmful or to incite harm;
(c) promote or propagate hatred.

The "prohibited grounds" include the usual things like race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc. You can see that it is trying to stop people being inspired to attack or discriminate against people. Our apex Court has ruled several times against freedom of speech when human dignity is involved, especially in hate speech cases.

I misunderstood your point about riots. I will concede that I know of only one other similar far right violent riot, which happened in Belgium last year, though I don't think anyone was killed.
   
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
debate, free, left, speech, terrified

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




All material copyright 1998-2018, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.