Utopia Talk / Politics / why is it always the UK?

Sam Adams Member	Mon Mar 31 06:27:31 http://www...icked-nursery-transphobic.html A toddler has been kicked out of nursery after being accused of transphobia, new figures reveal.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Mar 31 06:28:14 Or is all of europe this retarded and we just get the news from english speaking areas?
Sam Adams Member	Mon Mar 31 06:43:51 http://x.com/Telegraph/status/1906486731584442580 "Ethnic minorities prioritised for bail" You couldnt invent a make believe nation in an old monty python skit more retardedly evil than the UK is today.
jergul large member	Mon Mar 31 07:27:25 That statement is not even a failure of imagination. *Looks at MAGA USA*
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 07:38:21 Lol, people who actually believe the most infamous gutter press in the Uk, the mail! "Parents remove son from school in pupil gender row" http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-41224146
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 07:50:50 What actually happened: Transphobic religious nutters withdrew their child from school because another boy wanted to wear a skirt, without the school arranging a "consultation meeting" with the parents of children going to that school, the Church of England, the LEA and various other institutions
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 07:56:49 The only time a school would summon all the parents of the children at a school, the Church of England, the LEA and various other organisation would be if one kid had murdered another. Christ almighty
Seb Member	Mon Mar 31 07:59:51 This is like the US pilgrims "fleeing religious intolerance" only the reality was that the "religious intolerance" that the Scrooby fundamentalists were fleeing from was not being allowed to create a sectarian village that could exclude all not sharing their faith.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 31 08:00:26 Americans - mad from day 1.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Mar 31 10:40:19 http://x.com/sam_bidwell/status/1906647812613263361 import people who hate you. "71% of British Muslims identify 'first and foremost' as Muslims, rather than as British or English." UK on a roll today.
jergul large member	Mon Mar 31 11:20:44 I wonder what the equivalent is in the US. How many Christians identify primarly as Christian instead of American? Who puts God ahead of Country there? I rather suspect most Americans conflate the two.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 31 11:38:01 Literally the first paragraph of the article: "Muslims in Britain regularly have their “Britishness” questioned, leading the majority to identify as Muslim first and British second, a report has found." I.e. directly attributing this to the fact they are repeatedly told by Sam's they "can't" be English or British. Cf. The articles last month where senior actually born in English conservatives claimed they couldn't be "properly" English because of their skin colour, following an insane radio interview itself driven by lunacy in the US alt-right echo chamber that CC was going on about three months ago. This is cast iron demonstration how Sam's undermine national identity with race bullshit, and then after haranguing minorities into accepting they can "never be British" "never be English" use the fact that they have bullied them into agreeing this as an example of how integration is impossible.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 31 11:42:35 Subsequent paragraphs: "The authors identified a strong sense of “belonging that British Muslims feel towards the UK”, particularly among older people who have lived in Britain for many decades." "It also found that, for most Muslims, their faith plays a more central role in their lives than their national identity. Catholic leaders have said the same is true for many Christians." Oh, right, so let's cast our mind back to the early 2005s where there was a massive crisis because the govt wanted to celebrate "Britishness" to celebrate 200 years of the act of union but nobody could agree what that actually meant. Is it surprising that those people strongly identifying as religious agree that religion is more important than their nationality on a day to day basis? Not really. We don't really have a Britain day, and we don't regularly do ceremonies like pledging allegiance to the flag etc.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 31 11:45:45 What an illuminating survey then: British Muslims feel they aren't allowed to identify primarily as British thanks to bullying, and like other strongly religious groups, find religion is more important day to day than their nationality. Which they would because if you deliberately focus your survey group on British Muslims you are excluding e.g. British of Pakistani heritage that don't identify as Muslim; and Muslims who aren't British and therefore know what *not* being British means in terms of access to employment etc. which actual Brits take for granted.
Seb Member	Mon Mar 31 11:47:28 I wonder if British Jews gave the same results, Sam would be calling to deport them?
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 11:50:23 Wasnt going to bother, but far-right Jews absolutely place Israel way ahead of any country they may live in, speaking from personal experience of the Jewish community I hung out with for a while in Stockholm
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 11:51:04 Dunno why Seb fell for Oddams abruptly changing the subject, though
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Mar 31 11:56:34 Seb There is a subset of Muslims in Iran, who identify as Muslims first and Iranian second. They exist everywhere. The data is congruent with the theory that Europe acts as a magnate for people who hold Islam as a very strong part of their identity. This was fairly clear during the heydays of the Islamic State and Europe’s massive contribution to jihadis.
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 12:30:40 Of course, the main difference between those guys I used to hang out with and Incel Boi is that he has zero loyalty to not one but two of his home countries. Two countries that he would happily betray for a country that hates him must be some sort of record
murder Member	Mon Mar 31 12:43:35 "Americans - mad from day 1." lol yep :o)
murder Member	Mon Mar 31 12:44:12 Also playing the victim from day one while victimizing others.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Mar 31 13:04:12 "Muslims in Britain regularly have their “Britishness” questioned" Gee, i wonder why that is. Maybe all the stabbings and rape? The welfare mooching?
Seb Member	Mon Mar 31 15:16:58 Nimatzo: So what about those Catholics that identify as Catholic before British?
Seb Member	Mon Mar 31 15:17:40 Sam: Maybe all the racist Sams.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Mar 31 17:09:21 No one wants to be stabbed by one of your migrants seb
williamthebastard Member	Mon Mar 31 17:20:24 "Nimatzo: So what about those Catholics that identify as Catholic before British?" Theyre christian, vaguely related to his iranian christianity (although really only by denomination, since religion is largely shaped by geographically bound culture), so theyre not his chosen enemy in the religious war he brought with him from Iran
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 01 01:34:56 Seb, If Catholics also prioritize religion over nationality, that confirms this is a general religious phenomenon rather than the result of British othering as you suggested. Both Islam and Christianity contain central elements that aim to transcend national, tribal, and familial ties. However, do 70% of British Catholics really identify as Catholic first? If not, then my point stands. And no, data from Northern Ireland wouldn't be relevant here, given the unique historical and ethnic conflicts.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 01 01:53:14 Though it is funny that the other group that came to your mind, is one that has been in direct conflict with the UK, both via NI, but also historically from the continent. :)
Seb Member	Tue Apr 01 01:53:54 Nimatzo: "If Catholics also prioritize religion over nationality...however, do 70% of British Catholics..." Those are two slightly different questions in the same survey: the first was on "identify" and second was on "important in day to day life". God forbid that multiple people might answer the same question for different reasons. Given the very flimsy data you've obviously not even tried to read on detail let alone get to the source, claiming it *supports* your views seems awfully premature. But let's say it is true: if British Muslims are more likely to identify as Muslim before British and the survey explicitly captures they do so because they believe that's how society views them and will object to them trying to identify as British - how does that support your idea that Europe attracts those that define as Muslim as a very strong part of their identity? When you couple it with the fact that second/third generation are *stronger* in that identity than the parents who migrated, altogether it suggests the opposite: prejudice and othering of people with oblivious heritage from traditionally Muslim countries forces them to adopt that as their identity because asserting a national identity meets resistance.
Seb Member	Tue Apr 01 02:11:02 Nim: It didn't come to mind, it's directly in the article Sam is indirectly citing. It's in quotes, following "subsequent paragraphs:" that's how an attentive reader can tell. They obvious challenge for a journalist asking Church of England folks would be "Are you familiar with the concept of an established Church? We crown the fucking king you idiot."
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 01 02:21:23 I reject the second part of your premise. This phenomenon exists outside of Europe, in the very countries Muslims migrate from, where national identity competes with religious identity. Even your Catholic example supports the idea that it is a phenomena among religious people, not something uniquely caused by European xenophobia and exclusion. As for second and third generation Muslims strengthening their religious identity, that is entirely congruent with the fact that religious families tend to produce religious children. This is a well documented trend across all religious groups. You must appreciate that religious values become very important when you are far from home. There is also the phenomena of bringing a spouse back to the UK. Apparently this phenomena is so common, I forget the number but it is exceedingly common. In practical terms it means there is always in every generation someone in the extended family who is new, requiring special attention, serving as a cultural link and retarding the rate integration. I What is interesting is that the recurring identity marker is Muslim, not Pakistani, Iranian, or Vietnamese. Why is that? The data shows prioritization, not rejection,yet you frame it as forced exclusion. Would you argue that deeply religious Christians in the US calling themselves Christian first, American second are being excludedinto that identity? Or is it simply a reflection of their values?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 01 02:24:31 Seb I have no read any of the articles, I am responding to things in this thread. What are you talking about specifically and in which link?
Seb Member	Tue Apr 01 05:59:27 Nim: "This phenomenon exists outside of Europe, in the very countries Muslims migrate from, where national identity competes with religious identity" Do you really believe there can only be one driver for an observable? There's a term for picking one finding from a study (in this case primary identifier) but reject another (stated reason for that identification). "not something uniquely caused by European xenophobia and exclusion." Catholics *do* face a certain amount of soft prejudice in the UK. Far less so now, but several hundred years of various form of legal and then social othering leave their mark. https://www.history.ac.uk/events/popular-anti-catholicism-post-world-war-2-england-and-wales
Seb Member	Tue Apr 01 06:02:49 In fact arguably it's quite similar in that the Catholics could never properly be British/English. Ironic given a few months back we were discussing the exact issue in terms of nationality and CC was trying to argue terms in the act of settlement which came about precisely because a *Protestant Dutch* ruler was preferred over a *Catholic Scottish/English* ruler because a Catholic couldn't possibly be properly English.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 06:07:55 Why are they all jealous of us, the original Europeans? US racists only accept European "blood", Iranian racists dream of having americanized European "blood" coarsing through their veins. I mean, we're better than them, but thats only because they're such bad people
Seb Member	Tue Apr 01 06:09:22 Nim: "I am responding to things in this thread" Yes, and in this thread, I provided extracts from the article that Sam is indirectly citing which states very clearly that part of the survey results were: "Muslims in Britain regularly have their “Britishness” questioned, leading the majority to identify as Muslim first and British second, a report has found" "The authors identified a strong sense of “belonging that British Muslims feel towards the UK”, particularly among older people who have lived in Britain for many decades." "It also found that, for most Muslims, their faith plays a more central role in their lives than their national identity. Catholic leaders have said the same is true for many Christians." You want to keep one part of the studies finding (primarily identify), ignore another (strong sense of belonging), and reject the a third (major cause of identifying primarily as Muslim being due to a feeling that identifying as English or British 'would be questioned'. Cf. Am entire media shit storm over whether or not Rishi Sunak is "really English" a few weeks back.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 01 06:10:46 "Do you really believe there can only be one driver for an observable?" Is this unintended comedy from the guy whose entire argument rests on exclusion and racism being "the one" cause? I'll settle with primary cause. "Catholics do face a certain amount of soft prejudice in the UK." Yes, and I acknowledged that early on with reference to the unique history of conflict entangled with ethnicity and class. But it’s telling that you had to pick Catholics, the only religious groups with a long history of conflict with the British state, both in NI and from the continent, to find a comparison. If that’s the best analogue, it actually weakens your argument. Even then, British Muslims today live in a country that actively promotes multiculturalism, religious freedom, and legal equality. So why does this "mark" of othering seemingly intensify over generations rather than fade as it has with other groups? If exclusion were the main driver, we’d expect the opposite trend.
Seb Member	Tue Apr 01 06:12:01 Can we really tell more about a population of people who were born in the UK to UK nationals by current behaviours of people in their grandparents place of origin than by the society and environment they grow up in? so much so that we can confidently reject the findings of a study of the former group based on assumptions on what drives similar behaviour of the latter group? Give me a break!
jergul large member	Tue Apr 01 06:19:31 The question itself is rather prejudicial. I cannot find any polling asking Americans if they identify primarily as Christian or American. Incidentally, very few Scots identify as British I am unsure of the rest of the UK. Perhaps the question should be asked is what % of Americans identify primarily as Christians or Yankees.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 01 06:19:58 Seb The fact that many British Muslims feel their Britishness is questioned does not mean that is the cause of prioritizing religious identity. That’s an assumption, not a conclusion. The report itself says their faith plays a more central role than national identity, which is completely expected for religious people. The things in this thread *support* what I am saying and in direct contradiction with exclusion being the main driver. Your media shit stork over Rishi Sunak is only relevant if you have figures showing Indians in the UK view themselves as Indian first and British second. Yes seb, there is xenophobia, you still have your work cut out for you to establish causal relationship between that and behavior at scale. You keep pointing at xenophobia as the main cause, yet you’ve done nothing to separate it from general universal religious factors. If exclusion were the key driver, why don’t we see the same effect for other minority groups at the same scale? If exclusion is the factor then why do we see these effect in other religious group? Why do we see it in the very countries people are born in, that are majority Muslims?
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Apr 01 06:21:13 [williamthecoward]: "What actually happened: Transphobic" Opinion immediately discarded. There is no such thing as "trans" and therefore no such thing as "transphobic". It's a thought-terminating cliché used by totalitarian Regime thought-reform programs — the same totalitarian thought reform which uses such clichés as "Nazi", "racist", "homophobe", "anti-Semite", and "Islamaphobe". It is a lie made to stop the thinking of pathetic and compliant leftists so that they will bring ruin to their societies. It is no surprise that leftists are the major users of these clichés. That is by design, reflecting your weaknesses and your propensity for treason and for the resentful betrayal of the West. What actually happened is that a school as enabling the delusional behavior of a child who was likely being abused via Munchausen syndrome by proxy, since only psychologically sick left-wing parents think that sending their child to school in the opposite sex' clothing is appropriate, and only left-wing psycho teachers would create a classroom atmosphere of the Devouring Mother (i.e., only sick leftists allow these delusions to persist in the classroom). The correct action here is to outright ignore requests for "gender affirmation" and to allow children to bully weirdos at the appropriate times. [seb-nonce (actual pedophile)]: "not being allowed to create a sectarian village that could exclude all not sharing their faith." It is also revealing that sebfag openly despises that a people might actually want to have a society which is intentionally *exclusive*. Under the destroyer morality of the slave revolt, this is simply not permitted — society must be *given* to others through the tyranny of "inclusivity". And I remind that "inclusivity"/"inclusion" is merely slave terminology for permitting the conditions of a slave revolt. As I said in November 2023: --------- "Inclusion" merely means the intentional selection/effecting for/of those with slave morality and a rejection and ostracism of those with noble morality. • The slave revolt includes those who will destroy society. • It must reject those who support the sovereignty of society. --------- Hence, seb-nonce is for open borders, for the rape and mutilation of White Western children (he is a pedophile), for the forced-destruction of exclusionary societies, and for the destruction of the West at large. Globalist destroyers always advocate for White genocide and for Kalergi's "race of the future" — the lukewarm brown person with no identity, the Last Man, the ideal slave. That sick degeneracy is his "Utopia". His sick pretense that Muslim invaders are simultaneously not a problem and also not even a distinct people from White Westerners once they get the right paperwork is merely a means to achieve the genocidal outcome that he wants. These people are absolutely evil.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 01 06:25:20 Seb Member Tue Apr 01 06:12:01 I have no idea what you’re on about. My point is simple: this phenomenon is not uniquely explained by British society. It exists among other religious groups in the UK and among Muslims in Iran and elsewhere. Prioritizing religious over national identity is a welldocumentedin both Christianity and Islam. Studies often make flawed assumptions or ignore contradicting data, this is no exception. You don’t get a break, no. You get a chance to make better arguments :)
jergul large member	Tue Apr 01 06:29:09 Only one third white people in England identify as British. The fraction is far smaller in Scotland and Wales. So people were asked if they primarily identify as muslim, or as something else that very few people have a primary identity.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 06:31:31 I bet the utterly dishonest and racist Incel doesnt identify himself primarily as a Swede.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 01 06:36:03 Most American Christians think of themselves as Christians first, then Americans, according to a 2007 poll by CNN. The survey said 59 percent identify themselves primarily by their faith, while 36 percent of believers described themselves as Americans first, Christians second. Anyway this undermines the point I made about there being something special with the selection of Muslims that come here. I concede that these American figures weaken that case. The problem is inherent to Islam... Nice work seb. It does however support what I am saying, it's a religious thing. Maybe the racism lives in that 12% gap.
jergul large member	Tue Apr 01 06:36:33 as a* There is also no polling asking Jewish Americans if they primarily identify as Jewish or as American. I can see why. Even asking the question smacks of anti-semitism
jergul large member	Tue Apr 01 06:41:37 Cutie, "Anyway this undermines the point I made". Refreshing! Well-done! <3.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 06:51:06 If we were to throw out people who dont primarily identify with their passport, Incel would be thrown out as quickly as any muslim.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 06:55:51 Or, as the Bible tells Incel Boi: "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"
Seb Member	Tue Apr 01 06:57:18 Nim: "The fact that many British Muslims feel their Britishness is questioned does not mean that is the cause of prioritizing religious identity." Let me try again. The specific *finding* of the study was that this was the cause. Unless you have access to the study, which you say you do not, you aren't really in a position to gainsay that specific finding. It makes no sense to reject one finding and go around hawking for an alternative explanation to another finding when you don't know whether or if those explanations are excluded by the study. It's cherry picking: "Without specifics, I accept finding 1 documenting a phenomenon because it chimes with my world view. I reject finding 2 on the casual explanation of 2 because it doesn't chime with my world view. Instead I substitute this alternative theory." Thanks for opinion, but it hasn't got any legs.
Seb Member	Tue Apr 01 06:58:59 *On the causal explanation for 1
murder Member	Tue Apr 01 07:06:30 "The correct action here is to outright ignore requests for "gender affirmation" and to allow children to bully weirdos at the appropriate times." Is that what happened to you? -
Cherub Cow Member	Tue Apr 01 07:47:17 [murder (left-wing dogma bot)]: "Is that what happened to you?" No. That's what I did to faggot weirdos like yourself.
murder Member	Tue Apr 01 09:45:17 Hurt people hurt people.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 01 10:03:21 Seb If the study truly establishes a causal relationship rather than just a correlation, then it would need to demonstrate that British Muslims who do not feel excluded do not prioritize Islam in the same way. It would also need to control for the broader pattern seen among Muslims worldwide, including those in nonwestern societies. Something tells me it does no such thing. If the study is based on survey responses then that is self-reported perception, not proof of causation. People can rationalize their identities in various ways, and depending on how the questions are asked, simply, surveys do not establish what would have happened in the absence of exclusion. However, since this phenomenon exists outside of Britain, in Muslim majority countries where national identity competes with religious identity, and among Christians in the US and UK, it suggests that prioritizing faith over nationality is a general feature of religious identity, not a factor of British xenophobiaz. Do you understand? We actually have control groups. You seem to think one study’s claim must be accepted without scrutiny, while simultaneously dismissing other data that challenges its assumptions. That is cherry picking and confirmation bias in addition to complete lack pf critical thinking.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 01 10:18:06 I’m genuinely astonished that the idea of friction between faith and family/tribe/nation is even controversial. These identities often come into conflict, whether through religious conversion, political allegiance, or cultural shifts. People are sometimes forced to choose which takes precedence. This isn’t unique to Islam, Christianity, or any one region, it is a fundamental part of how identity works. The case that European muslims are more extreme is not supported by the data I have found. Thd gap of 12 % between Americans who are Christians and Muslims isn’t earth shattering.
Seb Member	Tue Apr 01 10:46:43 Nim: The reporting we have claims so. It is very strange to accept one reported claim and then reject the other on no basis whatsoever.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 10:47:20 Its so strange that SA sees the daily mail telling blatant lies and yet will continue to always return to it. If I read a source telling such blatant lies I would never use it again, since I have an interest in researching facts. But when you know without doubt that a source lies to you but continue to return to that source, you provide indisputable evidence that lies that support your emotional responses easily trump your desire for facts and knowledge. Its the perfect antithetis to the absolute essence of rational and scientific thought.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Apr 01 14:26:10 What source in the UK is any more reliable? The bbc? Seb? Lmfao
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 14:57:41 Y'see, little neonazi, one of the UK populations most treasured traditions during their war against Hitlers Nazis, was gathering around the radio in the evenings to find solace from the BBC. The Mail did the opposite: "two British press magnates who sought to stop Britain confronting Nazi Germany, Lords Rothermere and Beaverbrook, owners of the Daily Mail and the Daily Express respectively." http://www.historytoday.com/archive/review/gutter-press
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 14:59:12 Why are you always on the historical side of the Nazis?
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 15:03:02 Harold Sidney Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere (26 April 1868 – 26 November 1940), was a leading British newspaper proprietor who owned Associated Newspapers Ltd. He is best known, like his brother Alfred Harmsworth, later Viscount Northcliffe, for the development of the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror. Rothermere was a pioneer of popular tabloid journalism, and his descendants continue to control the Daily Mail and General Trust. He became known for his open support for fascism and praise for Nazi Germany and the British Union of Fascists.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Apr 01 15:11:37 What sources did 80 years ago is not remotely relevant to its accuracy today. Try again.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 15:11:57 Little Neonazi, while my British grandmother, like all brits, would gather around the radio to hear from the BBC what was happening to, in her case, her husband who was shot in the leg by the nazis as he was leading his troops out of a trench to attack the Nazis and later recieved a medal for his courage against the Nazis, your Daily Mail was supporting the Nazis. You filthy little Nazi.
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 15:14:45 We must remember that Hitlers greatest inspiration for his Nazism was the USA http://uto...hread=94263&time=1743513246276
williamthebastard Member	Tue Apr 01 15:25:16 50,000 americans were killed by the Daily Mail supported Nazis, only for their descendents to support the Nazi enemy. An unimaginable disgrace to their memory.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Apr 01 19:34:26 Inability to hold a conversation or maintain rational thought=mental illness
Seb Member	Wed Apr 02 01:56:26 The daily mail has been using the rage bait model before the internet came along. You'd have to be a complete moron to think of it as a news source. It's entire business model is based on a provocative headline that infuriates someone to pick up the paper to read more (or click on a link these days) and the copy similarly to keep you reading.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 02 02:22:17 Seb I don't care what it claims, I care what it shows. People claim all sorts of things that they can not support. You seem to be in that situation right now. You are detaching yourself from the conversation, because you have nothing of substance. I have asked multiple questions, made arguments and pointed to data directly contradicting your claims. Good day sir.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 02 04:18:22 Nim: I'm not claiming anything. I'm saying Sam's source doesn't support his arguments. It also explicitly rejects yours but you are cherry picking bits to try and claim it does. And now you've come out and said actually you don't care about the study claims, but what it shows. However, you also earlier said you hadn't read the primary reporting source, let alone the study. So you aren't in a position to assess what it shows, and picking reported findings to accept (that British Muslims identify as Muslim rather than British) but rejecting others (that they do so because they feel identifying as British or English is questioned) and inventing a highly dubious claim that the reason people in the UK identify this way is better explained by whatever forces drive an entirely different group in a predominantly different culture several generations removed, so much so, that we can attribute the reported findings of why to what amounts to false consciousness. And you try to buttress this claim by the implausible idea that Muslims in Iran are a good control for Muslims in the UK. Which simply indicates you have absolutely no idea what a "control group" means in a scientific context. Yeah I'm disengaged because I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to engage with here. Ultimately, if you don't believe one part of the study findings have merit, but think the others are sufficiently striking as to warrant an explanation, but also don't have access to the study, that's just an irrationally held opinion. I can't really engage more than I have, which is to say - this is kite flying with no supporting evidence.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Apr 02 04:36:52 [murder (left-wing dogma bot)]: "Hurt people hurt people." That's what weak people tell themselves. It's the same error-prone thinking that has leftists immediately lash out when the Right is critical of the LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA by saying, "[Hur hur, why do you care so much? Must be you're a little gay yourself if you're so interested in gay issues? Hur hur]." But no, your lies and inversions are weak and transparent. Stopping an arsonist with a match does not make me an arsonist, and stopping treason is not treason. Just because you are weak does not make the strong weak as well. Where weakness is given too much power it pollutes everyone, and bullying fixes the weak into shedding their childish ways. Societies that fill their schools with Devouring Mothers as "teachers" forget this lesson. These Hens believe that terminal children will grow up kind, but all they do is make a society ripe for conquering, where those children — that they believed were aided by kindness — found no such kindness in the hands of their enemies and instead were destroyed in the conflict or ruined psychologically in survival. Soldiers returning from the Great War learned this lesson: they had been over-mothered, had no concept of reality, and were unprepared for horror. That is another part of why leftists die in droves. A little bullying might have saved you from your weak natures, but many of you cannot even handle a word.
murder Member	Wed Apr 02 05:13:30 "That's what weak people tell themselves. It's the same error-prone thinking that has leftists immediately lash out when the Right is critical of the LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA by saying, "[Hur hur, why do you care so much? Must be you're a little gay yourself if you're so interested in gay issues? Hur hur]."" http://www...hread=94265&time=1743584919189 Actually it's why you feel the need to associate the LGBTQ community with NAMBLA. You know they aren't doing anything wrong, but you hate them, so you try to associate them with child predators. But it isn't the LGBTQ community molesting kids, and it isn't trannies who rape women in bathrooms. That's your crowd. "Where weakness is given too much power it pollutes everyone, and bullying fixes the weak into shedding their childish ways. Societies that fill their schools with Devouring Mothers as "teachers" forget this lesson. These Hens believe that terminal children will grow up kind, but all they do is make a society ripe for conquering, where those children — that they believed were aided by kindness — found no such kindness in the hands of their enemies and instead were destroyed in the conflict or ruined psychologically in survival. Soldiers returning from the Great War learned this lesson: they had been over-mothered, had no concept of reality, and were unprepared for horror. That is another part of why leftists die in droves. A little bullying might have saved you from your weak natures, but many of you cannot even handle a word." No you hate kindness and empathy because you didn't receive any. You are a reflection of the people who raised you. -
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 02 05:13:55 Seb "but also don't have access to the study" Everybody has access to the study. Wait a minute, you think the study is the times article behind a paywall? Oops? Have you read the study? The qualitative part where causality is derived from is based on 11 interviews. That is not impressive. Anyway I have posed questions, raised issues and pointed to contradicting data, which you have hand waves and deflected. It would be a waste of time to dive deeper into the specifics of the study.
Cherub Cow Member	Wed Apr 02 06:08:41 [murder (left-wing dogma bot)]: "Actually it's why you feel the need to associate the LGBTQ community with NAMBLA." That is not *my* association; that is the *left's* association. They are openly pro-pedophile. It's literally their ideology. Are you seriously doubting this? Are you not familiar with Gide's "Immoralist" and the absolute fact that it is taught in left-wing universities? Are you merely lying or are you truly ignorant? Are you ignorant also that the pederast Foucault is a major thinker in left-wing universities? Why do you suppose he's cited so much in the affirmative? Why do you suppose that pro-pedophile thinkers such as Judith Butler cites Foucault's pro-pederasty arguments as something which must be applied also to feminism? Why do you suppose "TERFs" are "bad thing" among the left, and why do you suppose that anti-TERFs such as Butler cite pederasts when they make the argument for "trans" acceptance? How many works by right-wing pederast priests do you think they teach at your local public university? [murder (left-wing dogma bot)]: "You know they aren't doing anything wrong, but you hate them, so you try to associate them with child predators." False. They are indeed doing wrong, I do not hate them as some disconnected abstraction which prefigures my knowledge of their wrongdoing (that is chronological reversal on your part), and they are indeed child predators. The wrong that they are doing is exposing themselves to children. That's literally what these drag events *are* — *factually*. I'm sure you've seen some of these events, whether they be pride parades (where completely nude people intentionally flash children), "child-friendly drag" events (and the left themselves **call these events this** despite the contradiction-in-terms), "drag queen story hour", classrooms with BLM and "Trans" flags, schools that "Affirm", or a hundred other examples of leftists intentionally gaining access to children so that they can expose themselves to those children under the guise of "inclusion" as a moral good. These people are doing wrong and should be prosecuted. Children should not be exposed to these degenerates any more than a 10-year-old should have access to porn or children should tour Kensington Avenue to see the fentanyl lean as a "normal" thing that they could pursue if it strikes their fancy. It is mentally damaging for the young to be exposed to these degenerate leftists, yet these leftists are intentionally creating situations wherein they can expose themselves to children. It is because they are, indeed, pedophiles. No one else is that interested in gaining access to children for the purposes of performing and "normalizing" deviant identities. They certainly aren't interested in making great mathematicians. "Teachers" and administrators helping kids get puberty blockers across state lines isn't exactly a best practice for teaching chemistry. [murder (left-wing dogma bot)]: "That's your crowd." Nope. Again, your tell here is simple: whether or not it's "my" crowd or yours, should not these people who intentionally gain access to children for the purposes of deviant indoctrination, grooming, and sexual assault being criminally prosecuted? It's an easy thing for me to answer: absolutely yes, they should be prosecuted. Whether they be leftists or Catholic priests, I'd want anyone who abused the trust of children and parents to be criminally prosecuted and given an expedited death sentence in the case of obvious and extreme abuses. Left or Right, that is my principle. You, however, know that a lot of your LGBTQ2S+NAMBLA crew would face a "genocide" (as leftists call it), so you can only keep deflecting to rapist priests with this weak assertion that the Right is still in the '90s and protecting them. Nope. Put those priests to death. Stop pretending like I'm protecting them. I'm not. Stop lying. [murder (left-wing dogma bot)]: "No you hate kindness and empathy because you didn't receive any. You are a reflection of the people who raised you." Nope. I love kindness and have a great empathy. I love my parents sincerely and without measure, I carry in me the love that they showed in my formative years as a line into today, and this love is Great and Unending and will live in my heart to my life's end. Your issue is that your empathy has snuffed out your reason under your destroyed Moral Foundations. Your issue is that this normal love is not corruptible and is not degenerate. You cannot conceive of innocence and purity and therefore seek to destroy it where it exists — which is your pedophile ideology, since pedophiles seek to corrupt children as quickly as possible so that whatever goodness exists in the world will be ruined immediately and swept from your sight. That is your resentful nature. Where well-adjusted children had parents who read them sweet stories of nobility and adventure, leftists would have parents disempowered, with instead degenerate leftists enabled by a totalitarian state to show these children grotesque images that even adults find disgusting. The very idea that a child could have a good upbringing is itself unacceptable to you — it's some concept that coaxes from you some leftist-destroyer phrase such as "bourgeois", "privileged", or "white supremacist". The simple fact is that teaching children noble stories and enlivening their imaginations and sense of greatness is superior to your leftist degeneracy, wherein children fall to narcissistic self-destruction and self-debasement under some sunken identity that involves pharmacological cocktails and surgical emasculation. Protecting children from degenerate swine has been a positive imperative throughout most of the West's Glorious history — all the way to the arguments with Socrates where the pederasts were challenged as destroyers of the youth — whereas your death cult would invert this to destroy children in the name of slavery and annihilation. You are so sick that you cannot even condemn any aspect of it.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 02 11:23:39 Nim: "Everybody has access to the study" Firstly, no, obviously I don't think the Times article is the study, as you can tell by sentences like: "However, you also earlier said you hadn't read the primary reporting source, let alone the study". And yes, I don't think you do have access to the study because: 1. You've repeatedly indicated you haven't by saying things like "I have no read any of the articles" or sentences in the conditional "If the study truly establishes a causal relationship rather than just a correlation, then it would need to demonstrate that British Muslims who do not feel excluded do not prioritize Islam in the same way. It would also need to control for the broader pattern seen among Muslims worldwide, including those in nonwestern societies. Something tells me it does no such thing." 2. How would you identify the study without access to the Times? If you *have* in fact read the underlying study and wish to critique it, you could do so, but none of your posts are written in a way that suggests that if what you are doing. Any reasonable person would read it as speculation.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 02 11:26:02 Have I read the study? No. But I suspect very strongly you've only just done so yourself, after making strong claims about what it does and doesn't support. Whereas all I've done is point out the study doesn't support Sam's claims, and that your approach seems to have been baseless cherry picking.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 02 11:37:42 It says right in the freely available text who conducted the study, and they provide it for free on their site. You didn’t even check that before assuming I couldn’t access it. lol :-) It was never necessary to read the study to ask those basic questions and contrast the conclusions you were asserting with contradicting data. If you actually understood the topic, you would have pointed me to the robust causal evidence. But you didn’t, because it doesn’t exist. Either you never read the study yourself, or you did and saw that it relies on just 11 interviews for its causal claims and chose to mislead me about its credibility. So which is it, were you ignorant, or were you dishonest?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 02 11:43:32 “No. But I suspect very strongly you've only just done so yourself, after making strong claims about what it does and doesn't support.“ Filthy liar. I poaited a bunch of questions needing answers for causality to be established and then said “Something tells me it does no such thing.” A hunch the proved to be correct. Then I said “If the study is based on survey responses then that is self-reported perception, not proof of causation.” Have you no shame you filthy liar?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Apr 02 11:44:54 You confirmed ignorance on the study and reveal yourself as a filthy liar in your summary of the thread.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 03 01:42:59 Nim: Before we begin, again keep in mind I'm not particularly interested in the matter of Muslims and their identification. This thread has been about how Sam, and then you, interact with media relating to this to buttress your worldview: taking from it the bits you want, rejecting bits you don't. You actually only started engaging with it critically to try and prove me wrong, but even then you are motivated in what conclusions you will allow the study to support. "It was never necessary to read the study" Of course it was. And you didn't ask questions, you made strong claims. "contradicting data." You provided no data. You just made assertions. "you actually understood the topic, you would have pointed me to the robust causal evidence." I could, if I had something material to challenge other than vapid flapping; and I've no interest in debating you. Rather in pointing out the study does explore causes and that they are quite different to what Sam claims, nor does it support your claims. "But you didn’t, because it doesn’t exist" Another strong claim. I've explained why I didn't - it's not actually relevant and the issue I'm focusing on is first Sam and then your terrible media literacy and motivated reasoning. "Either you never read the study yourself, " I literally answered that question in the first line if the previous post. Do you have Alzheimer's? "just 11 interviews" This is still more evidence than you have provided to substantiate your claims about why some Muslims Iran identify as Muslim rather than Iranian and any evidence to substantiate the idea that this is a more plausible explanation than offered by the study that could apply to an entirely different population in another part of the world. The idea we should accept in principle that Muslims in Iran are a good control - that all other factors are equal - for people born in the UK is absurdly stupid. In fact the main thing in common is the thing under investigation: the fact that they are Muslim. That's a fundamental misunderstanding of what a control group is. Further, as I've pointed out, until the post before last it's clear you haven't either as you critique would have gone directly for the qualitative element rather than speculative approach. ". I poaited a bunch of questions needing answers for causality to be established and then said “Something tells me it does no such thing.” A question would be "Does it" rather than "If". So yes, those are clearly speculative statements. If you had read the study at the time of writing, you would have simply said something like: "The study relies on 11 qualitative interviews which I think lacks statistical power. If they wanted to prove ..." Further note, you haven't questioned whether 800 odd survey has statistical power; but you are happy to take the conclusions from that. I find that interesting. "A hunch the proved to be correct" Indeed, so as I said, you admit you hadn't read the paper. It was basically a statement at the time unsupported and irrational. You've also modified your line of attack as we see below. "the study is based on survey responses then that is self-reported perception, not proof of causation.” Which makes absolutely no sense. Because if the issues is self-reporting perception being inadmissible then you are implying people can't know what motivates them in this instance. If we can't trust them to accurately describe *why* they identify a certain war, how can we trust them to accurately describe how they identify in the first place. It's a very meta position (Cf. Pretend there's Tiger in the next room). Personally I think self-reporting is a complete red-herring. Of course we can trust people to explain what it is that makes them identify a particular way. We have no data to suggest people are misreporting this. This is absolutely not at all the same thing as arguing either of: 1. The findings on causes rely on qualitative interviews not quantitative surveys which is somehow less authoritative. 2. The number of surveys lack power (though actually I suspect the 800 odd survey lacks the statistical power to characterise how Muslims identify in the first place, but you aren't even considering that because that finding supports your preconceptions) These are the arguments you are advancing now, but they come *after* you made strong claims and even now seem more structured around cherry picking to buttress your existing worldview; rather than an honest critical reading with a view to incorporating what can be reasonably concluded into your understanding of the world. And that's really all I have to say.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Apr 03 02:15:47 I am not going to continue arguing with such a brazen filthy liar.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Apr 03 03:48:19 In summary: It is a fact, across cultures and not exclusive to Muslims, people regularly prioritize their religious identity over their national and ethnic one. This is not controversial, because religions by their nature aim to transcend the natural and material barriers, Christianity and Islam specifically have a tradition and scriptural support of pitting family members against each other. This should have been Sebs’ angle dealing with what Sam Adam said. However, the hopeless physicalist that seb is, he failed in empathizing with the faithful and instead reductively see their behavior as strictly the result of material concerns. This reductive and hollow physicalist approach ended up painting him into a corner, where he had to imply having read a study, when he had not, embellish how robust the causality was, when it was not. VERDICT: Seb is filthy lying goblin.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 03 05:18:29 http://bsk...bsky.social/post/3llvamsh2m22y So this is interesting also: this purports to be the way tarrifs are being set - what is needed to get trade to balance. Thinking through the economics then: US policy going forward is to aggressively seek balanced trade. At the same time the US is clearly seeking to reduce issuance of debt. This is a problem for the Dollar. If you can't earn more dollars by exports and the debt you hold is going to turn into a stream of dollars, do you really want to earn dollars for your exports?
Seb Member	Thu Apr 03 05:20:29 Nim: I've certainly not lied anywhere. I rather think I've demonstrated my point completely. You don't actually do any kind of critical reading. If you had actually read the report, you'd probably want to consider why white Muslims and non-white Muslims have such striking differences in survey responses. Instead you've cherry picked individual findings to buttress your views.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 03 05:21:17 Nim: "In summary: It is a fact, across cultures and not exclusive to Muslims, people regularly prioritize their religious identity over their national and ethnic one. " Then why do the results differ by age?
Seb Member	Thu Apr 03 05:22:07 "This should have been Sebs’ angle dealing with what Sam Adam said. " It actually was addressed in the article Sam was indirectly citing and it's there in my second post.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 03 05:24:21 " failed in empathizing with the faithful and instead reductively see their behavior as strictly the result of material concerns" Again, you attribute this to me, though it's an explicit finding of the study. (Who exactly is the lying goblin here Nim?) And certainly seems to explain the differences in the survey between white and non white Muslims, and between Muslim generations, and aligns with the limited qualitative element of the street. It also aligns with prior studies.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 03 05:25:45 "where he had to imply having read a study," I did no such an thing. I was very clear and explicit in my wording I took issue with you and Sam's approach to the reporting.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Apr 03 05:30:29 “Then why do the results differ by age?“ Then why don’t all of them answer the same way? Probably because some of them have up quarks and some of them have down quarks. You’re a moron.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 03 09:19:56 Nim: If you have statistically significant differences between different age groups or generations, that tells you something very significant. If you have statistically significant differences between white and non-white Muslims, I would suggest that tells you something also. In fact, I would go as far as to say if I was going to test the hypothesis that non-white Muslims might identify as Muslims because they feel they are not entitled to identify as English or British, Vs your theory that it's natural consequence for religious groups, then white Muslims are a much better control group than Muslims in Iran.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 03 09:20:53 This is breathtakingly obvious but clearly didn't occur to you because rather than reading the full study, you were rushing through it to try and find lines of attack Motivated reasoning, in other words.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Apr 03 09:44:59 "that tells you something very significant." The the pressure to conform and integrate has eroded decade after decade. That it is easier to be a Muslim in multicultural UK 2025 than it was in 75. There are tools to keep together a national and global muslim community that did not exist. "white Muslims" White muslims do not come from muslim families, they do not have the same pull and push factors as muslims who are born into extended muslim families, reinforcing their faith to the same extent. "Muslims in Iran." You just too thick to understand the relevance of this. The phenomena of prioritizing your faith over your nationality is universal. It is inherent in ideologies transcending the material. In conclusion, you are still a moron.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 04 05:36:24 Nim: "The the pressure to conform and integrate has eroded decade after decade" Or, as in line with the qualitative research, they have increasingly faced rejection when adopting English or British as an identifier because white working class in England have increasingly adopted these as an ethnic identifier to signify "white". And there's a lot of evidence that is the case. There may be others hypotheses. I'm interested why you have excluded this option and your supporting evidence for doing so. "White muslims do not come from muslim families" interesting assertion that seems to assume they are converts, rather than from the caucuses and balkan communities that are both classed ethnically as white but traditionally Muslim, which is actually the case.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 04 05:36:41 See what I mean about motivated reasoning?
williamthebastard Member	Fri Apr 04 06:05:50 A whole lot of palestinians are as white as any american racists who froth with pride in their european lineage, even red hair is not uncommon among them.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Apr 04 06:22:57 The Caucasus originally included the arab countries, until white supremacists decided to change the meaning of the word.
williamthebastard Member	Fri Apr 04 06:24:33 *originally included some arab countries
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: