Australian 'no-go' zones

[Brian Peacock]

Brian has obviously been converted to Islam. Why else would he criticise a critic who is criticising people for not criticising...er..

                      

!!1!	NOTMOD Rum, I would like to REMIND you that Islam, as miraculously delivered to the holy prophet Muhammed PBUH, is the final and most perfect word of the Almighty Allah. Please keep this in mind in future. God is Great God is Great

[Forty Two]

Brian has obviously been converted to Islam. Why else would he criticise a critic who is criticising people for not criticising...er..

                      

!!1!	NOTMOD Rum, I would like to REMIND you that Islam, as miraculously delivered to the holy prophet Muhammed PBUH, is the final and most perfect word of the Almighty Allah. Please keep this in mind in future. God is Great God is Great

[pErvinalia]

It seems you are suggesting that police in Australia operate outside the Law?

It wouldn't surprise me. Cops everywhere like to think they are a power to themselves.

[Cunt]

Cunt,

This is a REMINDER that deliberately misrepresenting not only the views of others members but what they have posted, as you did here, here, and here, is the kind of malicious trolling which runs counter to the guidelines you agreed to abide by when you became a member of the forum. Please try and avoid similar postings in future.

Yer Mods

I don't see any misrepresenting anyone's views there. If you care to elaborate, I might read it.

But your posts kind of drone on, and they are hard to read without getting sleepy.

[pErvinalia]

Cunt,

This is a REMINDER that deliberately misrepresenting not only the views of others members but what they have posted, as you did here, here, and here, is the kind of malicious trolling which runs counter to the guidelines you agreed to abide by when you became a member of the forum. Please try and avoid similar postings in future.

Yer Mods

You've got to be fucking kidding, right?

Brian... come on.... what the hell....?

Horse shit.

It's trolling. Why not sanction it?

[Cunt]

pErvinalia, I honestly think you (and others) are so fully submitted to Islam, that you cannot speak out against it. I gave examples, asking you to say why you wouldn't hand out those pamphlets (as an example), but instead of answering that simple question, I get a warning for it.

Funny, I would have expected it more on a religious forum.

[pErvinalia]

No one has fully submitted (let alone partly submitted) to Islam.

[Cunt]

So why do you have such a tough time answering?

Why would you be unwilling to support inclusion of LGBTQAIP?+ by handing out those pamphlets?

[pErvinalia]

So why do you have such a tough time answering?

Because you are trolling. No one is going to answer your trolling crap.

[Cunt]

So why do you have such a tough time answering?

Because you are trolling. No one is going to answer your trolling crap.

I ask because I think you are uncomfortable detailing the answer.

I am also.

But it isn't trolling. I'm trying to point out how Lauren Southern has a real point, and you are making it by refusing to talk about it.

[pErvinalia]

Refusing to talk about it with you. There's a difference.

[Cunt]

It's awful, what she was exaggerating.

What is staggering to me, is how firmly you are opposed to discussing her point.

It's the same I would expect of someone 'of the faith'. Submitted because they believe is functionally identical to submitted because they fear.

[Forty Two]

pErvinalia, I honestly think you (and others) are so fully submitted to Islam, that you cannot speak out against it. I gave examples, asking you to say why you wouldn't hand out those pamphlets (as an example), but instead of answering that simple question, I get a warning for it.

Funny, I would have expected it more on a religious forum.

I think your question was posed incorrectly. I wouldn't pass out those kinds of leaflets either, but it has nothing to do with the danger of Islamic retaliation. I just wouldn't hand out such literature.

But, I get what you're trying to say - you're trying to say that people will be chilled from passing out anti-Islamic literature because of the threat from retaliatory Muslims, and from the chilling effect of protectionist laws. I agree that is an issue.

I was surprised at the warning you got. I don't see as your posts were among the worst offender of attributing views to people that they don't hold. I found the warning very puzzling.

[Forty Two]

So why do you have such a tough time answering?

Why would you be unwilling to support inclusion of LGBTQAIP?+ by handing out those pamphlets?

It's because there are good guys and bad guys, and Southern is a bad guy who isn't passing out the literature to help the LGBTQRamalamadingdong, but rather to upset the Musselmen. Upsetting Musselmen = bad. That's racism and harassment and incitement to violence.

Now, if it was handing out pamphlets in an orthodox Christian neighborhood, and the Christians got upset, fuck them, because they're in the privileged class.

That's the way it works - it's the Progressive Stack and the oppressor/oppressed analysis. If you're in an oppressed group, then your bigotry isn't bigotry anymore - it's "prejudice" which results ultimately from the white patriarchal hierarchy that we have. Were we to destroy the white patriarchy, then all the oppressed groups expressed bigotry would disappear because they'd no longer be reacting to the imposed hierarchy.

Wallah - you have a perfect rationale for tolerance for me, but not for thee.

[Forty Two]

It seems you are suggesting that police in Australia operate outside the Law?

It wouldn't surprise me. Cops everywhere like to think they are a power to themselves.

Cops also like to take the path of least resistance, like everyone. If a group of white racists are headed down to the public square to protest, and the cops think they might piss off the Mohametans, then the easiest way to get home on time for dinner is to stop the entire process before it starts. That's where they get the "we were preventing a breach of the peace" argument. The problem is, before there is a breach of the peace, there is no telling that there will be one, and cops will just err on the side of stopping any arguments, because then you guarantee no peace breaches.

Trouble is, most interactions result in argument and perhaps yelling and insults, but no violence. So, giving discretion to cops to stop public protest ahead of time under breach of peace rubric ultimately means that only the most milquetoast of public rhetoric will be allowed.

Cops will of course, overreach on purpose, but often overreach can come from good intentions, and also it can come from a misinterpretation of the law. Cops don't always know the extent of the law. Some cops in the US still think they can order you to stop recording them with a video camera or phone - they cannot. They can only do that if your filming is interfering with their investigation. So, in cop lingo, that sometimes means "if I want you to stop, you stop, or i tell you you're interfering with me..." -- it's kind of like "resisting arrest." A cop just starts saying "stop resisting!" and there, you have another charge and all you did was stand still.