Youtube's continue with left propaganda #MoreThanARefugee

[Aquinan]

What cultural things to they need to get rid of, and what can they keep?

Example from the Sri Lankan's that come to Australia: They bring their hatred for other sects of their society with them, so we have had street fights/small riots between their sects. Shit like that.

[Damajin]

Again you're conflating economic migrants with refugees. Secondly not every legitimate refugee is going to Europe, in fact talking Syrian refugees alone, a majority (~1,000,000) have fled to neighboring countries (Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey).

I must also reiterate that Syrians aren't the only refugees. Nuer refugees in South Sudan (who have largely made their way to neighboring countries or managed to gain asylum in the US) are fleeing genocide.

To the citizens of a country there is no difference between economic migrants and refugees, since they both get funded from the same pot and they all decide to stay. You can dance around this all you like but the reality is you don't see mass exodus of these people back to their homelands once their region is safe, and you won't. They'll stay and suck on the government teat the rest of their days.

I'm indifferent to what they're fleeing. If they gave a shit about their homeland they'd fight and if genocide found them so be it.

[Runenwächter]

In the United States, almost all illegal immigrants are hard-working people with jobs. As for them being "soldiers of fortune" that's a joke. It's simply not the case.

There you go, in the US....
....

Well we arent in the US. If you think these refugees or migrants from africa are a good thing and will help your economy, stop talking and send ships. Send a LOT of ships. Ask Soros for the money, he seems like a nice guy.That being said, things are a lot different in the US and not all is better, believe it or not. Crime. Gender equality. Equal access to education. Public Healthcare. Infrastructure. To name a few.

If the issue is with a small percentage of a group, then punish those people, not everyone. Let the individual be responsible for his own actions. Do you wish to be punished along with your neighbor, all because you look like him, or live next to him? Screw that.

Well we could oppressively discriminate against people and through preemptive action prevent a lot of harm but thats evil according to you.

You seem to be conveniently forgetting the one major caveat I place when I say people should be free to do what they want. They should be free to do what they want, so long as it does not harm others. Yeah, most people tend to forget that last part, because they can't really argue a case if it's included. And, since you want cultures controlled by borders, you do want to use force to keep them separated. There's only one problem, cultures cross borders all the time, because people bring part of their homes as they move.

Am I technically cockblocking someone when I refuse to let them rape me? Yes.
TECHNICALLY. Technically fitting the description is worthless to the argument.
I dont want to seperate all cultures from each other or seperate my culture from all other cultures. I seek to control migration, culture can spread without people. Culture is merely a single part of the equation. So yeah, technically I want to seperate cultures.

You want to forcefully prevent other cultures from entering your borders, I think that is clearly a definition of authoritarianism. I'm not sure how you can say it is not.

Well how about you prove it is something first and we go from there and not do the old "what else could it be" game. I dunno, how about... a snow leopard.

I never sought to destroy anything, other than oppression.

Yes you did. Conveniently you have a very loose sense of what you declare oppressive. You want something that you neither a natural or a manmade right to and I or others deny it to you? You call "oppression" and now you've got to fight the good fight.

If you are upset that I do not support you forcing your culture onto others, you are correct. I do not support the destruction of your culture, unless your culture is one of oppression and harm. By wanting to only have one culture within your borders, you are very much trying to force your culture upon others. You clearly want the government to enforce such things, and that is what government is... force.

Lets examine the facts:
I live in my own country within my own borders in my own culture. I am forcing nothing on anyone who is not forcing themselves and their cultre on me first by occupying finite space and resources within the borders of my country. To reject my freedom to send him packing is oppression.

As for your last paragraph. It's clear you think state sovereignty is more important than individual freedom. I'll take personal freedom any day of the week.

How you've read that into it but failed to concieve any of its actual meaning is beyond me.

Here is my olive branch to you:
You go live in New York in a socioeconomic struggling area, ideally where different minority cultures intersect in a house, apartment, trailer or container without doors. Because borders and keeping people out by force is opressive. Without the help of agents of instutionalized oppression like the police or a gang to back you up. You do that for one year and I will SERIOUSLY reconsider my opinion on the matter.

The answer will probably still be no and you will be dead but at least wel will have learned something about life.

[Cruor]

Wait.. the one from Africa is a girl? Yeeeaash. And the other two want to be a rapper and a lawyer? Yeah, that's what we want more of.... liberal propaganda and they could not even find people we might want?

I have to add, the amount of dislikes and awesomeness of most of the comments on the youtube page are restoring my faith in the western world. When you see inspiring things like people rallying together against the liberal controlling hordes, or Trump winning, you think maybe we can win, maybe we can turn the tide and push liberals back underground and one day eliminate them once and for all.

[Machismo]

There you go, in the US....
....

Well we arent in the US. If you think these refugees or migrants from africa are a good thing and will help your economy, stop talking and send ships. Send a LOT of ships. Ask Soros for the money, he seems like a nice guy.That being said, things are a lot different in the US and not all is better, believe it or not. Crime. Gender equality. Equal access to education. Public Healthcare. Infrastructure. To name a few.


Well we could oppressively discriminate against people and through preemptive action prevent a lot of harm but thats evil according to you.


Am I technically cockblocking someone when I refuse to let them rape me? Yes.
TECHNICALLY. Technically fitting the description is worthless to the argument.
I dont want to seperate all cultures from each other or seperate my culture from all other cultures. I seek to control migration, culture can spread without people. Culture is merely a single part of the equation. So yeah, technically I want to seperate cultures.


Well how about you prove it is something first and we go from there and not do the old "what else could it be" game. I dunno, how about... a snow leopard.


Yes you did. Conveniently you have a very loose sense of what you declare oppressive. You want something that you neither a natural or a manmade right to and I or others deny it to you? You call "oppression" and now you've got to fight the good fight.

Lets examine the facts:
I live in my own country within my own borders in my own culture. I am forcing nothing on anyone who is not forcing themselves and their cultre on me first by occupying finite space and resources within the borders of my country. To reject my freedom to send him packing is oppression.


How you've read that into it but failed to concieve any of its actual meaning is beyond me.

Here is my olive branch to you:
You go live in New York in a socioeconomic struggling area, ideally where different minority cultures intersect in a house, apartment, trailer or container without doors. Because borders and keeping people out by force is opressive. Without the help of agents of instutionalized oppression like the police or a gang to back you up. You do that for one year and I will SERIOUSLY reconsider my opinion on the matter.

The answer will probably still be no and you will be dead but at least wel will have learned something about life.

Yes, you can preemptively discriminate and oppress people, that's what many people support. However, that means you don't get to complain when someone turns around and chooses to do it to you. And yes, that is authoritarian of you to do so.

We go back to the overall issue, you want to forcefully separate cultures. At least you are finally willing to admit it. Culture is only one part of the equation, and I think we can guess what the other parts are... If you want the definition of authoritarianism, I will gladly provide it for you. However, I would hope you can look that one up on your own.

What are you saying is not a natural right? Moving?

Your own sovereign nation represents force, let's make that clear right now. That's what government is. You have stated your desire to limit migrants, and restrict cultures, that is clear. That would be done with force, are you still with me? Otherwise, keeping them separate would be a completely voluntary action on your part, and on your own property. However, using the sovereignty of a state means you are forcing it upon others. You are trying to say that your freedom of action (force people away at gunpoint) is more important than their freedom of action (movement), even if their action in no way harms or restricts you. You want to cause harm, whereas simply moving does not.

Your last paragraph is useless. I fully believe in personal liberty, and the ability to protect one's self from harm. I do not believe in restricting any action that does not cause harm. Moving across your country's border does not cause harm. A person can still believe in private property, and choose to protect it himself. It's all about placing personal liberty over state sovereignty.

[Deleted]

Lovely heartwarming video.

Some people lack compassion and decency to be upset at something like this. How sad!

What is worse.. a person who "lacks empathy and compassion" and keeps to him/herself, never harming or helping anyone or a leftist Antifa commie who uses violence and fascist tactics to forcefully convert others?

As for the actual refugees who aren't economic migrants, they should be content in the next safe country till the crisis blows over instead of skipping all of those and coming to the richest ones that are culturally very different.

[eillas]

What is worse.. a person who "lacks empathy and compassion" and keeps to him/herself, never harming or helping anyone or a leftist Antifa commie who uses violence and fascist tactics to forcefully convert others?

As for the actual refugees who aren't economic migrants, they should be content in the next safe country till the crisis blows over instead of skipping all of those and coming to the richest ones that are culturally very different.

Maybe they want to get as far away as they can.

[Clone]

It is about their (at least some of them) culture which put man first, instead like in western culture women and children first. Would you run away from war and at the same time you would leave your mother/granny/sisters at home?

Yeah and we are to believe you are the epitome of gender equality.

[Deleted]

this forum is a great sample of the rest of the world at the moment.

if someone on the left says something ignorant and ridiculous. It is ok, do not argue or you get in trouble.

if someone on the right says something that is not ignorant and is not ridiculous. It is not ok, do not disagree or have different views to people on the left or you get in trouble.

[Deleted]

Maybe they want to get as far away as they can.

Nah, it's pretty obvious they want to use the socialist policies in these countries to live for free and get free stuff. I mean in Sweden, like 95% of them still havent found work after 5 years and are leeching welfare. Somehow they tend to avoid countries that actually expect them to support themselves.

[Deleted]

Got a source for that?

https://www.thelocal.se/20160531/few...ers-found-jobs

[SupBrah]

Marketing 101 m8.

Youtube's core audience is still young millennials. With places like Twitch more and more trying to compete with YouTube, they need to try and keep customers and/or bring in new ones. Especially after the fiasco where that blogger or whatever got a bunch of companies' PR departments to panic and pull ads from YouTube in fear that they might end up on some racist video.


Well... Guess what? Young millennials also tend to be ridiculously, RIDICULOUSLY liberal, and refugees are now THE token oppressed minority.

A video about refugees?



That's basically catnip to the average, modern liberal.

[BannedForViews]

Accepting refugees from tragically war torn parts of the world is the morally right thing to do in my opinion. It is of utmost importance that we integrate them into our cultures as best we can. This is also a separate case than immigration

why havent you been running around pushing for importing all those poor africans who've been under warlord rule for decades?

[Freighter]

Nah, it's pretty obvious they want to use the socialist policies in these countries to live for free and get free stuff. I mean in Sweden, like 95% of them still havent found work after 5 years and are leeching welfare. Somehow they tend to avoid countries that actually expect them to support themselves.

No shit? We mostly give them humanitarian status in South Korea rather than refugee status because if they obtained refugee status we'd have to provide more for them.

[satimy]

why havent you been running around pushing for importing all those poor africans who've been under warlord rule for decades?

I'm not arguing you need to take every refugee in the fucking world, you should take what you feel like you can handle and if that's 0 then so be it

[Runenwächter]

What are you saying is not a natural right? Moving?

rather, anyone moving anywhere anytime you want.

Your own sovereign nation represents force, let's make that clear right now. That's what government is. You have stated your desire to limit migrants, and restrict cultures, that is clear. That would be done with force, are you still with me? Otherwise, keeping them separate would be a completely voluntary action on your part, and on your own property. However, using the sovereignty of a state means you are forcing it upon others. You are trying to say that your freedom of action (force people away at gunpoint) is more important than their freedom of action (movement), even if their action in no way harms or restricts you. You want to cause harm, whereas simply moving does not.

Managing money and national security have a lot in common: I can avoid a lot of trainwrecks and achieve the same amount of peace, stability and prosperity by acting preemptively rather than reactively. I do not give a loan to people who are unlikely able or willing to repay me. I do not let masked individuals with no ID into my offices. I do a backgroundcheck on the people I do business with. I discriminate on the basis of observable reality for the sake of my institution and by extension it's clients.

The greatest amount of freedom and personal liberty in a balance with security and stability is not reached without force and never in the history of mankind it has been.
Simply moving doesnt harm us, thats right. But do they move through empty space? No, they use our roads and infrastructure. Do they pay for their own necessities out of their own pockets? No they dont. Is this about MOVING in the first place or is the problem rather that they stop moving and stay? It is the later obviously.
That is not "free movement" with no friction. But whats important is what follows "movement". And that is collision and resulting damage.

Economically and culturally speaking the space is already occupied and their "free movement" can only happen if whatever was there is forced out. The only acceptable way for this to occur is when the place is when that space is given freely, voluntarily, without coersion, not out of simply the goodness of the heart but because it seems beneficial to both sides.
If you doubt that, try the following experiment: Let someone move their fist with great velocity towards your face with the aim of stoping his fist right in the middle of where your head is now and see where this gets you. Pain is where.

Simply moving doesnt cause harm, so no reason for oppressive preemptive actions right? Of course simply stepping out of the way solves the issue of pain, but not the underlying problem that an attempted assault just happend.

You know this isnt about moving at all because moving was never the endgoal of migration.

Your last paragraph is useless. I fully believe in personal liberty, and the ability to protect one's self from harm. I do not believe in restricting any action that does not cause harm. Moving across your country's border does not cause harm. A person can still believe in private property, and choose to protect it himself. It's all about placing personal liberty over state sovereignty.

An attack has not been initiated only after the damage was confirmed. Drawing a gun doesnt cause harm. Speeding towards a group of pedestrians doesnt cause harm. They are both however indicators of clear and present danger that is to be avoided.
Protecting yourself from an attack is recognizing patterns and to act largely preemptively withing reasonable limits.

I suggest you do you, whatever that may be. Just try not to fuck with the national sourvernity and cultural heritage of people that are not your own. It cant be that hard not to ruin it for everyone else, even if you are from the US.

[Machismo]

rather, anyone moving anywhere anytime you want.


Managing money and national security have a lot in common: I can avoid a lot of trainwrecks and achieve the same amount of peace, stability and prosperity by acting preemptively rather than reactively. I do not give a loan to people who are unlikely to be able or willing to repay me. I do not let masked individuals with no ID into my offices. I do a backgroundcheck on the people I do business with. I discriminate on the basis of observable reality for the sake of my institution and by extension it's clients.

The greatest amount of freedom and personal liberty in a balance with security and stability is not reached without force and never in the history of mankind it has been. Simply moving doesnt harm us, thats right. But do they move through empty space? No, they use our roads and infrastructure. Do they pay for their own necessities out of their own pockets? No they dont. Is this about MOVING in the first place or is the problem rather that they stop moving and stay? It is the later isnt it. That isnt unrestricted movement with no friction, that is collision. The space is already occupied and their "free movement" can only happen if whatever was there is forced out. On that note let someone move their fist with great velocity towards your face and see where this gets you. Simply moving doesnt cause harm, so no reason for oppressive preemptive actions right? You know this isnt simply about moving or moving at all because moving was never the goal.


An attack has not been initiated only after the damage was confirmed. Drawing a gun doesnt cause harm. Speeding towards a group of pedestrians doesnt cause harm.
Protecting yourself from an attack is recognizing patterns and to act largely preemptively withing reasonable limits.

I suggest you do you, whatever that may be. Just try not to fuck with the national sourvernity and cultural heritage of people that are not your own. It cant be that hard not to ruin it for everyone else, even if you are from the US.

That is a freedom, one you seek to limit a great deal.

Your desire to act preemptively, wrapping up completely innocent people in the process, is exactly why it's authoritarian. It's heavily restrictive, and targets mostly innocent people who have caused no harm at all.

The greatest amount of freedom is attainable only when you restrict actions which cause harm. As soon as you go past that marker, then you have limited the overall possible freedom. Now, many would love do do exactly that, in the name of whatever particular thing they believe in most. It may be sovereignty, security, socialism, wealth, whatever. However, it limits freedom. Since I favor freedom above all else, I'm not going to support such authoritarian measures.

Your last paragraph is contradictory, because you don't really want people to do as they want, you want them to do as you want, so long as they are within a set range of miles to you. So, since you feel they should respect your culture, you should in turn respect their culture, and their desire to not take part in your culture, even if within your borders. After all, if they are there, and are not harming others, then there's no cause to force your culture upon them.

[Zeth Hawkins]

You seem upset that no one agrees with you

We know this is not the case, as there are those who do agree with him. Myself included.

[Kuntantee]

The kind of thread I'd open if I thought refugees are bunch of lesser animals.

[jackofwind]

We know this is not the case, as there are those who do agree with him. Myself included.

Hyperbole can be hard for some people to understand

It's okay, the nuances of conversational English can be subtle.