Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    When it comes to amount of crime committed, or number of violent incidents, those supposed to be the "far right" are statistically far worse than the "far left". This has been the case for decades. There are hundreds of race or religion motivated criminal acts committed on a daily basis, it is a serious problem that everyone should be taking into account, no matter which political tribe they choose to support.

    To be honest I find the whole "right" vs. "left" thing to be a pretty tedious argument. Anyone so simple-minded that they can define their entire ideology by such tribalism isn't really worth the time of day.
    Complete nonsense - data is collated annually by EUROPOL and produced in a report called 'Terrorism Situation and Trend Report' TE-SAT, and 'Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment' SOCTA/OCTA.

    Your claim that far-right are far worse than far-left is just plain wrong. As is your claim that 100s of of race and religiously motivated criminal acts occur daily. The ONS also produce annual reports which don't back up your claims. Reporting isn't the same as convictions.

    https://www.europol.europa.eu/activi...s/main-reports
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I don't need to try harder. You are a conspiracy theory nutjob. Plenty of others have already shown that.
    Right so people across our entire political spectrum, lays say 80%, don’t hold these views:

    - Formation and measurement of arbitrary groups
    - All group inequality is as a result of oppression and prejudice (not from natural differences)

    - At the same time:
    - Biology and history are prisons which cause inequality and therefore need to be negated (e.g. race / gender is a social construct)
    - Natural / biological differences don’t exist

    - Therefore intervention is needed to equalise these groups
    - The groups are classified as oppressed / oppressor groups
    - From trying to make people equal; loss of objectivity (Rotherham), loss of truth (race / gender is a social construct), loss of freedom (arrests for tweets)
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    That's wholly irrelevant. Even if all of that were applicable, it's still no evidence that there is some sort of group pulling strings in every country in order to kill white man.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    That's wholly irrelevant. Even if all of that were applicable, it's still no evidence that there is some sort of group pulling strings in every country in order to kill white man.
    Sorry but where did I say that there is a group pulling strings to kill ever white man?

    Now you are just letting prejudices against an argument out instead of facing the philosophical content.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Offline

      20
      (Original post by SarahLeicester)
      Complete nonsense - data is collated annually by EUROPOL and produced in a report called 'Terrorism Situation and Trend Report' TE-SAT, and 'Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment' SOCTA/OCTA.

      Your claim that far-right are far worse than far-left is just plain wrong. As is your claim that 100s of of race and religiously motivated criminal acts occur daily. The ONS also produce annual reports which don't back up your claims. Reporting isn't the same as convictions.

      https://www.europol.europa.eu/activi...s/main-reports
      The far-right is better only if you ignore self-reported and/or non-violent hate crimes. Europol only cares about violent crimes and extremism.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Airplanebee2)
      Sorry but where did I say that there is a group pulling strings to kill ever white man?

      Now you are just letting prejudices against an argument out instead of facing the philosophical content.
      I'm not. That is what social Marxism is about, the bottom line.
      • TSR Group Staff
      Offline

      18
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by SarahLeicester)
      Complete nonsense - data is collated annually by EUROPOL and produced in a report called 'Terrorism Situation and Trend Report' TE-SAT, and 'Serious and Organised Crime Threat Assessment' SOCTA/OCTA.
      We're talking about crime in general here, not terrorist attacks.

      (Original post by SarahLeicester)
      Your claim that far-right are far worse than far-left is just plain wrong.
      That's not what I said. I'm talking about rate of violent crime from these supposed groups, which as I already mentioned is completely irrelevant when it comes to validating or refuting the ideology associated to them.

      (Original post by SarahLeicester)
      As is your claim that 100s of of race and religiously motivated criminal acts occur daily. The ONS also produce annual reports which don't back up your claims. Reporting isn't the same as convictions.
      I've already posted data from the Home Office backing up this claim. The rate of hate crime within England and Wales alone is over 100 per day, if you were to look at statistics worldwide, or even just in Europe, you would see that there is plenty of race/religion-motivated criminal acts to go around.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      6
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by yudothis)
      I'm not. That is what social Marxism is about, the bottom line.
      No social Marxism is about this:

      - Formation and measurement of arbitrary groups
      - All group inequality is as a result of oppression and prejudice (not from natural differences)

      - At the same time:
      - Biology and history are prisons which cause inequality and therefore need to be negated (e.g. race is a social construct)
      - Natural / biological differences don’t exist

      - Therefore intervention is needed to equalise these groups
      - The groups are classified as oppressed / oppressor groups
      - From trying to make people equal; loss of objectivity (Rotherham), loss of truth (race is a social construct), loss of freedom (arrests for tweets)


      The left use this thinking that the enemy of my energy is my friend and the friend of my enemy is my friend. For example if the Nazis wanted to control immigration and a UKIP member wants to control immigration, they say: you’re a Nazi.

      The fact that there happen to be some people on the right who talk about a secret conspiracy to kill white people and refer to social Marxist thinkers, and there are some people who believe in Chemitrails and cite social Marxist thinkers, and who want lax gun laws, and cite social Marxist is thinkers, does not lump everything in the same box.

      The left’s method of debate is to put a debate in an unacceptable box and therefore avoid debating it.

      No! I have layers out the arguments above; debate them, don’t try and exclude by using the left’s game which is to label them!
      Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
      • Community Assistant
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Airplanebee2)
      No social Marxism is about this:

      - Formation and measurement of arbitrary groups
      - All group inequality is as a result of oppression and prejudice (not from natural differences)

      - At the same time:
      - Biology and history are prisons which cause inequality and therefore need to be negated (e.g. race is a social construct)
      - Natural / biological differences don’t exist

      - Therefore intervention is needed to equalise these groups
      - The groups are classified as oppressed / oppressor groups
      - From trying to make people equal; loss of objectivity (Rotherham), loss of truth (race is a social construct), loss of freedom (arrests for tweets)


      The left use this thinking that the enemy of my energy is my friend and the friend of my enemy is my friend. For example if the Nazis wanted to control immigration and a UKIP member wants to control immigration, they say: you’re a Nazi.

      The fact that there happen to be some people on the right who talk about a secret conspiracy to kill white people and refer to social Marxist thinkers, and there are some people who believe in Chemitrails and cite social Marxist thinkers, and who want lax gun laws, and cite social Marxist is thinkers, does not lump everything in the same box.

      The left’s method of debate is to put a debate in an unacceptable box and therefore avoid debating it.

      No! I have layers out the arguments above; debate them, don’t try and exclude by using the left’s game which is to label them!
      You seem to be using a rather small number of students to generalise millions upon millions of people.

      The vast majority of those on the left, or those who vote Labour don't care at all about any of that.

      They care about stuff like the cost of housing and the NHS. I'll repeat, the only people who are obsessed with Marxism, are those such as yourself.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      Every person I read talking about social Marxism also thought there is a plot to eradicate white men. The two go handmade in hand.

      Secondly, I know very few people who fit your description. Ironically, you yet still attribute social Marxism to "the left". Talk about forming arbitrary groups.

      And yes, racism and sexism for example shouldn't be debated. They're wrong, what's to debate. And immigration? There is almost universal agreement among scholars in this field that its net effect is positive. And so if people cry I'm not a racist but immigration is terrible, then yes, you're a xenophobe at best, if not a racist.

      You can cry as much as you want that you're not racist or sexist, but no one is fooled and it's got nothing to do with putting people into boxes.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      6
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Bornblue)
      You seem to be using a rather small number of students to generalise millions upon millions of people.

      The vast majority of those on the left, or those who vote Labour don't care at all about any of that.

      They care about stuff like the cost of housing and the NHS. I'll repeat, the only people who are obsessed with Marxism, are those such as yourself.
      So then why were the following people fired:

      James Damore of Google,
      Carole Thatcher of the BBC (daughter of Margaret Thatcher)
      Paula Deen of The Food Network
      Alec Baldwin of MSNBC
      Phil Robertson from A&E
      Justine Sacco of Inter Active Media Corp
      Don Yeltsin of North Carolina State
      Rick Sanchez of CNN
      Jimmy Snider from NFL Today
      Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Airplanebee2)
      So then why were the following people fired:

      James Damore of Google,
      Carole Thatcher of the BBC (daughter of Margaret Thatcher)
      Paula Deen of The Food Network
      Alec Baldwin of MSNBC
      Phil Robertson from A&E
      Justine Sacco of Inter Active Media Corp
      Don Yeltsin of North Carolina State
      Rick Sanchez of CNN
      Jimmy Snider from NFL Today
      They were unpleasant people, to say it nicely. What you aren't basically saying here is that the evil left doesn't be tolerate *******s. Sounds so terrible.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      6
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by yudothis)
      They were unpleasant people, to say it nicely. What you aren't basically saying here is that the evil left doesn't be tolerate *******s. Sounds so terrible.
      So 1. How was Carole Thatcher a terrible person for using a word for a minority group that was out of date?

      2. The left says that black peoples can’t be racist and doesn’t tend to take any action against blacks people who insult the white race, females who insult men (like the comic Jo Brand on TV). How how can these people be terrible people but people from protected groups who insult non-protected groups be good?
      Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Airplanebee2)
      So 1. How was Carole Thatcher a terrible person for using a word for a minority group that was out of date?

      2. The left says that black peoples can’t be racist and doesn’t tend to take any action against blacks people who insult the white race, females who insult men (like the comic Jo Brand on TV). How how can these people be terrible people but people from protected groups who insult non-protected groups be good?
      1. You're beyond help if you can't see that.

      2. Of course they can. What they are saying is that as an institution, whites as a group still profit in net whereas as blacks are disadvantaged. There's a difference. You're showing a lot about yourself, debating these issues without actually understanding them.
      • Community Assistant
      Offline

      15
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Airplanebee2)
      So then why were the following people fired:

      James Damore of Google,
      Carole Thatcher of the BBC (daughter of Margaret Thatcher)
      Paula Deen of The Food Network
      Alec Baldwin of MSNBC
      Phil Robertson from A&E
      Justine Sacco of Inter Active Media Corp
      Don Yeltsin of North Carolina State
      Rick Sanchez of CNN
      Jimmy Snider from NFL Today
      That people are fired so easily is a sign of weak employment rights. Companies are allowed to fire anyone they want for any reason, as the right have argued.

      Not, 'cultural marxism'
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      6
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by yudothis)
      1. You're beyond help if you can't see that.

      2. Of course they can. What they are saying is that as an institution, whites as a group still profit in net whereas as blacks are disadvantaged. There's a difference. You're showing a lot about yourself, debating these issues without actually understanding them.


      Right so you have actually referred to advantaged and and disadvantages groups thus proving my theory.
      Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Airplanebee2)
      Right so you have actually referred to advantaged and and disadvantages groups thus proving my theory.
      No. One part of it, that is undoubtedly true. Same way kids if rich parents generally are advantaged compared to those of poor. It's not rocket science.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      6
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by yudothis)
      No. One part of it, that is undoubtedly true. Same way kids if rich parents generally are advantaged compared to those of poor. It's not rocket science.
      No you didn’t refer to rich kinds and poor kids, you referred to blacks as a disadvantaged group and to whites as an advantaged group, hence you are at the centre of the theory. Probably so much so that you are unaware.
      Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      6
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by yudothis)
      1. You're beyond help if you can't see that.

      2. Of course they can. What they are saying is that as an institution, whites as a group still profit in net whereas as blacks are disadvantaged. There's a difference. You're showing a lot about yourself, debating these issues without actually understanding them.
      Right you claim that it immutable that Carole Thatcher is a terrible person for using the term Gollywog. The term was in common use up till the late 80s or early 90s, in fact it was the signature icon of Robertson’s jam and people would collect Gollywog tokens with a black round fave image and send off for their free Gollywog man. The term was not considered offensive or derogatory. Then obviously one day the PC brigade decided that the term was offensive and called in the PC police to punish anyone who used the term.

      If Carole Thatcher has used the term in 1985 then she is a fine person but if she uses it in the late 90s then she’s a nasty person?

      So if you don’t obey the PC thought police you’re a nasty person?
      Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Airplanebee2)
      No you didn’t refer to rich kinds and poor kids, you referred to blacks as a disadvantaged group and to whites as an advantaged group, hence you are at the centre of the theory. Probably so much so that you are unaware.
      It's not a theory it's fact. And you were the one talking about generic groups being formed and said some have advantages others not. I haven you another such example and asked would you deny it for that too?

      You're talking actual nonsense here, and aren't even internally consistent in your argument.
     
     
     
    Reply
    Submit reply
    TSR Support Team

    We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

    Updated: November 4, 2017
  1. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  3. See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  4. The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.