I don't have an answer to the following questions so my mind is honestly open to change. Please share your perspective.

I don't believe that drone strikes create terrorists. There were terrorists long before drone strikes and there will still be terrorists after drone strikes. The US armed the proto-Al Qaeda with Stinger missiles and they still hated us. Some people just need to murder members of the outgroup (westerners) to maintain the ingroup. Drone strikes are completely justified as a form of self-defense.

However, I believe that PC and SJWs creates more violent alt-righers. Everytime a google engineer is fired for "promoting gender stereotypes" it fans the flames of the violent alt-right. IMO, if we destroyed political correctness and adopted an alt-right immigration policy then the alt-right would disappear.

These two views are contradictory. I want to appease the violent alt-right but regect appeasement of violent jihadis?

Does PC create more Nazis?

Do drone strikes create more terrorists?

discuss.

Edited 8/26/2017 16:07:41

Does PC create more Nazis?

The more extreme ones, like the people who demand *total* equality of all ethnic groups or (real) genders, yes. Because thats not achieveable.

Do drone strikes create more terrorists?

Only if you dont care about civilian casualities. Only strike when you are 100% sure you got only terrorists.

Edited 8/26/2017 16:46:57

On your title you have 'discussion on Islam', but you didn't say anything about Islam.

^
Political Correctness and drone strikes implies Islam. Since (unfortunately) far-rigth terrorists are not being drone striked.

Drone strikes in themselves don't create terrorists, but within this context they can. There are mistakes which lead to civilian casualties (similar to friendly-fire incidents in Afghanistan), but within this context this can fuel Al Qaida's message because it pushes the narrative of the US killing civilians. Technically, in itself drone strikes aren't really legal since they violate national borders, but they are also neccessary (many key figures have been eliminated from them, namely in Somalia and Pakistan).

Edited 8/26/2017 16:53:34

"if we destroyed political correctness and adopted an alt-right immigration policy then the alt-right would disappear. "
That would fire up the SJWs, in turn firing up the alt-right

Drone strikes may be done in order to fight an evil, but they do unfortunately cause civilian deaths. When you kill civilians, even by mistake, Al Qaeda and ISIS use those deaths to paint a hateful image of America and the West. In a lot of those drone-bombed countries people hate the US in huge levels, mostly because of the drones. I also have the idea that drone strikes are fairly ineffective into killing terrorists, as they can easily hide in civilian areas or caves, thus limiting the strike power.

I suggest you watch the segment of John Oliver about drones, it's a very good explanatory video on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs

What creates more nazis is primarily not SJWs or PC, these may radicalise them, but mostly what drives it is a nostalgia of the past in a context of weakeness (or perceived weakeness) of the actual position of a country or social group. Nazism is mostly positioned as a reactionary movement in opposition to conservativism and mostly liberalism. Conservatives want to conserve things the way they are, liberals want to change it to something new, and reactionaries want to go back to the past.

Therefore to me what created the alt-right and ressurgence of nazism in the West was the very strong social changes that happened in the last century: women's voting rights, feminism, the fight for equal racial rights, the ending of nation-states in favour of cosmopolitan countries, globalization, social equal rights, the replacement of government led policies to laissez-faire ones, And more recently LGBT rights, the arrival of immigrant waves, new fighting for equal racial rights and SJWs.

To me SJWs are just one part of the equation, a continuation of changes that fuel reactionary sentiments. As for PC, it was way stronger in the past. The nazi spike is also speeded up by free speech, ideas are able to travel fast and doctrines can be shared in the blink of an eye. If you had the same social context but with 80s or 90s technology, I doubt the Alt-Right would be so strong.

No shitpost yet? Impressive. Although i probably will jinx it the moment i post this.

Back to topic. I do believe PC and SJWs create more far-right people than anything. If all Immigration policies both in EU and USA took a more conservative and sane turn we could drop both terrorism and cultural strife.

If UK increases restrictions on African immigration but decreases restrictions on East Asian immigration, that would be good.

^ First shitpost. Sorry tabs but it's true.

if we destroyed political correctness and adopted an alt-right immigration policy then the alt-right would disappear.

Not really getting this part. That's like saying "if we adopted a communist economic policy, then the communists would disappear". I think it only strengthens them, since it gives into some of their demands. They'd want to advance their agenda if they realise they can get part of it.

For once, I actually agree with the majority. SJW's and the Alt-Right feed off eachother, and both are disgusting groups. However, I dont think encouraging one or the other will fix things. They need to both be told "you're going to too far, we aren't going to do what you say" and then ignore them. Attention is what they want.

In terms of Drones, I also agree, there have been terrorists since long before Drones. The issues in the Middle East will not be solved simply.

On the 25th of August in the New York Times, Timothy Egan had an article published entitled What if Steve Bannon is Right?

For Egan the central matter is an assertion made by Bannon.

The longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em,” he said of Democrats. “I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.

How does Egan respond? In part by making the following assertion regarding Trump voters.

It’s too easy to write all these people off as racists, for that’s exactly what Bannon is counting on. Yes, there’s a genuine hate-cohort in the Republican Party — neo-Nazis, or “clowns and losers,” in Bannon’s terms — of about 10 percent, which is horrifyingly high.

But there are many more voters in Trump’s camp who still consider themselves Democrats. Some live in the much-discussed zone of despair, places where opportunities for people without a college degree are few, and the opioid epidemic rages. These folks are persuadable, if the message is economic hope — something that Obama understood, and Hillary Clinton never did.

My own reaction is that both Egan and Bannon are correct. If the Democratic Party thinks that they can gain traction running on the one issue of identity politics, while at the same time abandoning the New Deal politics that allowed the Democratic party to control U.S. politics for the better part of a half century, it is a mistake. The changing demographics of the U.S. are not going to reverse the Trump victory.

The Democrats think they can ice skate to victory. They think that Trump's asinine behavior will hand them success. If they continue to act on these misguided notions they will continue to loose.

However while the SJWs, and Democrats who echo their sentiments, are giving aid to the Alt-right, they can't claim responsibility for people who march with torches while chanting, "The Jews will not replace us!"

Not really getting this part. That's like saying "if we adopted a communist economic policy, then the communists would disappear". I think it only strengthens them, since it gives into some of their demands. They'd want to advance their agenda if they realise they can get part of it.

This is ridiculus. You are saying that whatever neo-nazis demand we must refuse just to spite them, even if it harms our nations. So when they chant "White Lives Matter" your response is "No. White lives don't matter." And when they chant "Jews will not replace us." Your response is "I want you all replaced with Jews."

Not everything the neo-nazis say is wrong. I don't believe that Jews will replace us. I also believe that white lives matter, that all lives matter.

What you are doing instead is choosing the most radical and dangerous position just to slap them. This won't work. It feeds into their propaganda that you are radical and dangerous and want to exterminate the white race.

The problem is that you have centered your morality based on "Whatever the neo-nazis say is wrong." What if they advocate for abortion because it reduces the numbers of blacks? Will you become pro-life because "Being pro-choice is appeasing neo-nazis!" ? That is just stupid. You need to take an honest look at their positions and find a few that you can advocate for.

Edited 8/27/2017 01:20:11

Because Nazis are evil? They actively tried to exterminate roughly a quarter of all human life on earth

I suggest you watch the segment of John Oliver about drones

John Oliver's sources in that video:
Iranian news, NBC, New York Times, CNN

Yeah, I don't take John Oliver seriously anymore. He only shows one side of the story and ignores any other perspectives. He obviously sights many left wing news sights. When was the last time he sighted the Wall Street Journal, Fox, Brietbart, or anything remotely center-right and took the source seriously? John Oliver is propaganda with a coat of British paint that makes him sound smart/authentic.

Therefore to me what created the alt-right and resurgence of nazism in the West was the very strong social changes that happened in the last century: women's voting rights, feminism, the fight for equal racial rights, the ending of nation-states in favour of cosmopolitan countries, globalization, social equal rights, the replacement of government led policies to laissez-faire ones, And more recently LGBT rights, the arrival of immigrant waves, new fighting for equal racial rights and SJWs.

To me SJWs are just one part of the equation, a continuation of changes that fuel reactionary sentiments. As for PC, it was way stronger in the past. The nazi spike is also speeded up by free speech, ideas are able to travel fast and doctrines can be shared in the blink of an eye. If you had the same social context but with 80s or 90s technology, I doubt the Alt-Right would be so strong.

I am not familiar with French politics but I know that Front National was long-ago nazi-sympathetic and a response to many of the things you have mentioned. I don't think Front National has anything to do with the alt-right nowadays though.

From what I know of the alt-right they support LGBT rights just to spite Muslims, support second wave feminism but not third, and support equal rights of all races. However, they believe that the only way to ensure equal rights for blacks is to have a black dominated country and vice versa for whites. There is some truth in this.

IMO you have
1. incorrectly identified the policies of the alt-right
2. incorrectly identified the causes of the alt-right
3. marginalized the role that antifa and the SJWs played in growing the alt-right.

You are probably correct when regarding the alt-right in France. I just don't think these are the same causes in America. Thanks for educating me a little on French politics, though.

On principle, I refuse the ideal that free-speech makes the alt-right more popular. The alt-right was irrelevant until Antifa started telling us that we can't hear them speak on college campuses or that it was ok to punch Richard Spencer to shut him up.

Whenever, you limit the supply of something it becomes more sought after. This applies to information on the internet and the alt-right. I do appreciate your perspective and I will add globalization and the internet onto the list of things that has spread the alt-right.

^Why do you oppose National Socialists? There is one thing I disagree with them though. I like Jews.

My thoughts on National Socialism

1. It works, perhaps better than capitalism. Capitalism has a tendency to create monopolies which take government intervention to break up. I don't have a problem with the boom/bust cycle though.

2. The anti-antisemitism is troubling. I am not Jewish but I respect Jewish accomplishments and I hope that the white race can rise once again to Jewish levels of awesome.

3. National Socialism takes different forms in each nation. In Poland, it is patriotic to be Catholic and Capitalist, in Russia it is patriotic to be Orthodoxy and Communist, and in Sweden it is patriotic to be neutral and hate your own country. National Socialism does not unify the white race but divides it along irrelevant historical lines.

EDIT: I apologize I can't get to all your responses tonight. I like Cata's response the best. goodnight.

Edited 8/27/2017 02:02:32

cruelest, chill out bro. I was merely challenging your idea that giving people power makes them shut up. you went on some tirade about how I think white lives don't matter or some shit.

just wondering, are you okay?

@Ox Ok. I am just wondering what the limiting principle is.

@Tabby I agree, so long as genocide is off the table. Resettlement, however, is a common occurrence. The economic migrants from Africa and the refugees from Syria are resettling Western Europe. The Soviets did it to stabilize eastern Europe post-ww2 (and massacre the Germans), the Jews are doing it right now to anchor their eastern border on the Jordan river. Resettlement is a natural occurrence throughout human history.

I totally support resettlement. That is completely sane and I think that it is possible to convince a majority of high-IQ races to support it. Genocide will never have popular support.

Edited 8/27/2017 14:28:57