Yes, of course. software robots should detect all mention of “cultural marxism” originating in Scandiwegia and those offenders should be rounded up for re-education.
Hell, no. W-Europe still has a lot more refugees to take before it reaches … saturation.
More brown people is always wise.
No way. A top-down approach is best. Your Bildeberg/Illuminati/NWO/Cultural Marxist Masters know what’s best for you. From Brussels does all wisdom flow…
Meh. Swedes don’t know what’s good for them.
It was a bad inappropriate joke, I agree with you. I am truly sorry.
Can you describe an appropriate way for me to criticize immigration? As far as I know I have never violated any US or Swedish laws in my rhetoric. Do you want everyone to engage in self-censorship to avoid offending highly politically correct people like yourself? Isn’t the very essence of a democracy the debating and discussion about things that are happening in our societies? Are you a real Marxist who believes in tolerance only for Left-rhetoric and total intolerance for Right-rhetoric?
“Highly politically correct”? “Marxist”? :rolleyes: Your accusations against people would work better if they had some vague association with reality.
You’ll have to support that with a cite if you want to go on claiming it. I doubt you’ll succeed, especially considering that you didn’t even qualify your statement to only refer to western Europe. Happy hunting! Your general credibility as a poster is already at zero with me - and I suspect most people here - who don’t subscribe to the same anti-islamism, xenophobia and conspiracy theories that you do.
Moving on, dealing with right-wing/xenophobic violence is a primarily a matter for law-enforcement/counter-terrorism.
Crucially: it’s antithetical to the core values of democratic society to reward an interest-group, that tries to promote their agenda through violence, with more influence on policy. Instead we should allow them less influence on policy for every violent act they commit. The first rule of democracy is that you promote your agenda by democratic means or not at all.
We only need to look at the history of the 20th century - e.g. the National Socialists of Germany or the Fascists of Italy - to see what happens when we reward right-wing anti-democratic violence with political influence. Democracy dies.
As to the related, but separate issue of how we best deal with (law-abiding, democratic) xenophobia, intolerance, and anti-islamism, I once again submit that denying those groups and the political parties who represent them influence on policy and denying them respectability is the best way to marginalize them and thus minimize the problem.
I fail to see that it was a joke at all, but I’ll accept your apology (if it’s my business to accept it at all). Doesn’t mean I’ll forget about it or that I won’t bring it up the next time I see you promoting xenophobic and anti-left conspiracy mongering. If you wanted to uphold credibility and a stellar pedigree around here you should have upped your game before you got started.
You obviously haven’t broken any laws, but that’s a laughably low standard to hold yourself to, wouldn’t you say? You’re free to make your case for whatever, and the rest of us are free to give you a piece of our minds. If you can’t handle the flack you’ll better start learning to keep your head down. That’s life.
See above, and in addition: you’ve already made clear in other threads that you subscribe to a conspiracy theory that states that “political correctness” is really Cultural Marxism - a nefarious plot started by the jew Marxists of the Frankfurt School in the early 20th century.
Thus, I consider your usage of “politically correct” and your accusation that I am accurately described as “highly politically correct” a slander since I’m not a Marxist and nothing about my thoughts on this subject has any relation to the Frankfurt School.
Therefore I’d like to see you either stake out and transparently account for a new definition of “politicly correct” that doesn’t offend me, or else retract and apologize.
It is the very essence of a democracy that you get to think and argue whatever you want and the rest of us get to call you whatever we want (though not in this particular forum on this message board) and choose to not let you eat at our table if we dont like you.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Doesn’t really apply to Breivik (I think), but there’s a lot of young adults that feel alienated from modern society. People that, for whatever reasons, never managed to form careers or healthy relationships. Both shooters in the Kauhajokiand Jokela school shootings in Finland seem to fit that description.
Putting more resources into preventing young adults from feeling alienated from society could be way to reduce similar incidents in the future.
I think it applies to Breivik, and to many perpetrators of Takfiri Salafist violence as well.
But it’s a hard problem to solve, isn’t it? How can we provide everyone with a career and a family? Unless we go back to Keynesian full employment policies, and reject the Thatcher/Reagan revolution completely, of course 
Stop breeding extremist politics?
They can’t be prevented entirely, of course, but they can be reduced via profiling. You prevent the people most likely to go on shooting sprees from being allowed near firearms. That would be, if you’re counting, white fundamentalist Christian right-wing self-styled patriots who nurse ethnic resentments.
A good way to start is by declining to pretend that what you want to discuss is something else. Then you continue by showing how your concern really is with immigration as such, not masked bigotry.
Sure. Focus on economic impacts and omit bullshit conspiracy theories about “Cultural Marxism.” Be prepared to defend your economic arguments as such.
This +1,000,000
As I was driven to the global warming issue by happenstance (ok, it was the “so stupid it burns” arguments the climate change deniers still want to peddle) it is very painful to notice the avoidance from the part of people like on #5 on one of the causes that Breivik himself gave for his rampage: that he swallowed hook line and sinker all the lies from the climate change deniers that imply or say that the scientists and the politicians that are setting policies to deal with the issue are conspiring to impose communism on all.
IMHO for all the talk on accusing the proponents of AGW of being part of a nefarious conspiracy that would harm people, this is now an example of one item that I was fearing it was going to come to a head: More guys like Breivik are to be expected thanks to the nefarious propaganda aimed against climate scientists and the politicians that are smart enough to listen to them.
I expect it will remain rare, though, for climate-change-denial paranoia to be tied in anyone’s mind, as in Breivik’s, with the kind of visceral racial-cultural resentments that are far more likely to provoke murder.
Well, I hope it will.
IMHO, and based on several examples of (some) posters even in the SDMB, I fear that that mix of resentments are not as rare as you expect.
This is an utterly outrageous thing to say. You would be hard-set to find a right-wing politician anywhere in the West who would be anything but shocked and appalled to see children of fellow citizens murdered. Even if we ignore that reality, the effect of this sort of event is almost always to shove the society in the opposite direction; if anything, you’ll see a backlash against anti-immigrant movements, right-wingers, etc.
(And as a fairly liberal immigrant, let me add: that sort of slander doesn’t make pro-immigrant leftists look good.)
Agreed. And looking at it with the very narrow objective of how to make a persuasive argument with mainstream appeal, it’s also a fact that settling for such an over-reaching position, that is so hard to defend on the merits, only gets in the way of the very credible and fair accusation that right-wingers and xenophobes who whip up a frenzy, do so without much bothering about the consequences, and thus in a very reckless manner.
Oh, please; these people are amoral near-psychopaths. Or psychopaths outright. Nor do they show signs of considering anyone not unreservedly on their side as “fellow citizens”. Nor do they show any concern for the lives of any children except sometimes their own. They aren’t “appalled” at all. And we’ve seen plenty of people on the Right tap dancing around the issue with remarks about how while they “disapprove” of the actual killing the killer was actually in the right. Most aren’t outright dumb enough to announce open support, but they do support what happened and they’d like to see more of the same.
Hopefully. But they’ve been killing people for a long time and it hasn’t stopped them; look at the anti-abortion killings.
In regard to the first paragraph, first two sentences: cite?
In regard to the rest: they’re tap dancing around the issue precisely because they’re appalled at what happened, and appalled that someone did such a thing in the name of beliefs they share.
In regard to the second paragraph: the dynamics of abortion killings, small-power terrorism, and ultra-right-wing terrorism are all extremely different. But I’m not sure it’s worth explaining that to you, given your
Given that accusations of “political correctness” are quite likely to spawn violent behavior, it would seem to be more logical to ban such accusations, (or any attempt to pretend that “Cultural Marxism” is equivalent to “political correctness” or is anything more than an academic exercise that has fallen out of favor even in academia).
I would not support such a law, as it violates my appreciation for the importance of free speech, but it is far more logical than anything you have proposed, either in seriousness or sarcasm.
Bitterly divided? Extremist socialist coalition? From where does Norway appear as you describe?
He’s danish, isn’t he? Even if Denmark has taken a right-turn in recent years I suspect you’d cause confusion if you tried to argue that Norway was governed by an “extremist socialist coalition” in polite danish company.