someone was posting shit that claimed arabs are basically immune to it

at least to it entering their lungs

The CCP told them the pets were dangerous, so the pets have to die. Mao tested this before as well, he told them their parents were dangerous.

an interesting feature is that one ship full of explosives in the estuary

yeah we've seen those @TheGhostAgent no way to know if the numbers are real, the site is easily accessible

There's two new nationalist parties for Ireland's upcoming election, but there's no polling data or debate invites... they seem doomed to 1% at most this election

flowing preferences is the only decent "solution"

does the UK have preference flows in elections currently?

you want representative? It is unlike preferential voting in Australia where voters indicate their preferences and votes are distributed until there are two candidates left and the one with the most votes wins.

Take the Scottish seat of North East Fife, held by the Scottish National Party (SNP) by the thinnest of margins: two votes.

In the 2017 election, SNP candidate Stephen Gethins won the seat with 13,743 votes — or 32.9 per cent of the vote.

The rival Liberal Democrats polled 13,741 and the Conservative Party came in third with 10,088.

That means the votes of the 66 per cent who didn't cast a vote for the SNP didn't "count".

^^ I ripped a quote out an article

It's not about redrawing borders of voting districts, it's about having a 'less worse' outcome for the majority

says the labour / lib dem voter

@notaglobe what do you actually think about the idea of preferential voting?

exactly. As an Australian, it lets me vote for the parties I actually believe in the message of, regardless of how small they are - and rest in the knowledge that I'm still supporting the correct "mainstream" party to win

I reckon the UK could really do with something like that, especially with the "voting conservative out of necessity" dilemma

people that think along party lines alone have a very small window of experience outside of the immediate and practical. They simply don't understand that ideas and policies change more rapidly than say, how quickly the church changes, or how quickly the currency changes

yeah we can definitely add courts to the anti-brexit elitist propaganda, just as most economists are globalist scum - t. economist

they were wrong about it being illegal, their decision was not a result of rigorous debate but rather a preconceived decision

@PureEvilPie in australia we have laws limiting speech despite a constitutional guarantee to freedom of speech, the reasoning behind those laws being possible is that the guarantee is not specifically written within some bill of rights but is part of the preamble texts.

courts are very often wrong, for political gain

well he's a left-leaning voter in the current decade, so yeah hyper authoritarian

@GalaxyBrainer doesn't matter what words you use, I'm saying he votes for the parties traditionally considered to be the opposite of traditionalist or individualist desires

semantics and derailing have killed debate in the public spaces

bring it back by being unapologetic in your use of language by your own meaning

rather the opposite - refuse to argue the meaning of words. Present the literal meaning or the commonly understood meaning, and never re-define regardless of what the opposition argues is the meaning. Simply ignore the semantic portion of debate and rightly accuse them of derailing the conversation when they go back to the meaning argument. People understand language without the preamble.

that's defining

you simply can't get rid of defining. I'm saying that if they define it differently, that's irrelevant. They're arguing with you, they can use your definition or be accused of delrailing debate

but how do we win that conversation?

I understand what you're saying, you don't need to explain

I'm just asking how can it help to continue down their deconstructivist path, questioning every stone before you step on it

Ignoring it is rarely tried

spending valuable debate time arguing meaning is time wasted - people broadly understand meaning or can be made to by thoughtful speechcraft

well firstly, here is what I'd suggest. strike directly to the issue, present an unlosable argument, then and only then allow the other side to claw backwards to definitions. You either reach a point where they disagree with common sense or you reach a point where their definition is unworkable.

the semantics portion of any debate loses the non-philosophical viewer

and that's who you're trying to convince, not the other person

which I do agree with (sorry if I didn't make that clear) - just that I think it's mostly impossible while the marxists are in the schools

I think that loses the viewers though

if we don't argue our definitions but rather simply state them as fact, then we skip that step.

which is a semantic argument in itself XD

yeah, understood. I'm thinking of hour longe debates where the participants simply dance around issues without ever discussing the facts of the issue, because they spent so long defining terms and saying 'oh that's not how I understand that word'

if people can start coming in saying "here's my preferred dictionary as reference, let's begin" then any deviation is a derailment dodging the question - you win. and fair enough to not have much interest in the tactics but that's just my strategic outlook on life thinking for me before I state my position

peterson goes alright when presented with hostility, but I actually think he flops when the host is civil. it's attack and defense, and I think he doesn't switch quickly enough

but yea I'm going to leave it there

it's not that multi-ethnic states don't work, just that multi-ethnic societies don't work. integration or segregation.

hahahhahaha @wacka don't tease the uneducated

whoa

is that the mormons?

I'm reading that utah state constitution criminalises polygamy, and that was a condition of statehood. If true, then what are they doing? trampling over the constitution?

he said multi ethnic, meaning "muh highlanders"

once again, SOCIETIES, not states. those ethnicities (highly anglicised anyway) did not integrate/ contribute.

@Leohte my point is that the distinctly ethnically different (i.e. native celtic speakers) which our friend nerf is likely referring to, did not contribute to british society as a whole. they had their own societies up until the point of integration.

basically, the nation continued despite their presence, not because of it

congrats, you found a freed slave

what a wonderful example of the success of multiracial britain, I'm sure his kind made up at least 15% of the country at the time!

@Leohte you completely miss my point - they integrated when they mingled and began to speak the language. When britain spoke a patchwork of languages, it was a wild and violent place. This is why language is one of the important aspects of ethnicity. Of course, shared heritage is the other most important factor.

meanwhile, the slav

but can your average elite?

or soyman?

yep, just speak the facts.

it's about culture only to the point that you can integrate the race.

nerf out here talking about owning taxi drivers

no, they think cops are racist because they're white.

and because they're in the "system"

@wacka somewhere in the middle. It's because the culture can't integrate that the race matters - because people self-segregate into cultures based on race.

the people you're trying to argue against in a logical fashion, they have been made too enraged to listen to reason - or they were too simple in the first place. you can try to increase someone's thirst for learning but it's difficult.

the self awareness of someone who hasn't exited the house in well over 4 years.

(the guy "dancing")

technically people radicalise when they're deep within the tribe and deradicalise when they leave, but I understand what you mean.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/radical is more what I was referring to there

> I found someone more marginalized than you

I've found that this is a statement some can't process

a lesbian friend simply doesn't think such a thing as relative scales exists

then they claim you're making yourself the victim. response?

then they say you should admit your privilege relative to the original topic group, and pay your reparations

https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickard_Gustafson

@Gaylien

google translate

there is no english article

anyway it basically just says he's a boomer swede

It would be wonderful to get them to admit it's about power, but good luck holding one in a room for that long without them bursting into tears

you're not wrong, dark. I've got a mate who worships che guevara.... it's like he's actually for the murder of degenerates and is too scared to directly admit it

BLM wants power. short term thinking only allowed

I honestly don't think they really care about any rights for or treatment of blacks. I think they just saw a movement for power and money which was being controlled by their own kind, and they decided to dig in.

@Nerf Me but do you know WHY a country is? for example, why the French didn't just say "oh sure the British can have us, since they're already here and all"

dark, assuming their intentions are honest and they actually feel there is need for a change to achieve some equality, that they feel wronged - That scenario puts nothing between us and them except the propaganda. Problem is, that's the propaganda they produce and disseminate, and you're written off with slurs if you question it.

hear that guys, it's the system of governance that makes us not Nigerians.

was the Nigerian government not established by the British in the first place?

IF you take that at face value, then sure. But a) we shouldn't just believe they have honest intentions and b) they're too openly hostile to just talk away their misconceptions.

he's saying be compassionate for the sake of compassion. It's an admirable stance, but even then, I don't reckon you can have the important conversation even if you befriend these people. @Marushia Dark @TheGhostAgent

Zuby's respectable.

gone

"gives them a platform" isn't a phrase anyone to the right of Sargon can use without cringing

what if there's a monopoly, or a cartel?

did he just dodge that question? at least stand for your positions...

still dodging the consent question <:thinking_clown:590855640268668928>

he follows ad hominem accusation with an ad hominem attack

it doesn't actually make any sense, because you'd have to either remove the representative aspect of parliament or you'd have to allow members to change their vote based on who else voted

wait, you reading that???

is that like a colonial cumsock?