• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Oslo, Norway Mosque Shooting; possible link to 8chan, being investigated as terrorism

fantomena

Member
Jun 1, 2013
14,982
378
655
But there are stats on Muslims in Norway in the link you just quoted.
Did you read the whole thing? There are many factors involved.

The trend in the number of members in Muslim faiths has been steady over the last ten years, with an average annual growth of 7,500. It is believed that there are a good number of Muslims who are not members of any mosque. This can be for several reasons:

  • they have been immigrated so recently that they have not found a mosque that fits
  • they do not feel at home in the faith that exists there
  • there is no mosque near where they live.
There will also be secular Muslims who do not attend the mosque because they consider their religion a personal relationship that does not need support in any mosque. There may also be some members of mosques who have no relation to Islam, but stand as members of loyalty or to avoid conflicts with family and social circle. It is difficult to quantify such conditions.

The extent to which young children of Muslims are enrolled in a mosque is unclear.Unfortunately, the statistics of members of religious communities cannot be divided into age groups. According to the law, children of married parents who are registered in the same religious community become members of this religious community as soon as they are born. However, this does not seem to happen automatically. Plesner & Deaf (Ed.) States (p. 28): "Parents who are members of a registered Muslim community can (our emphasis) register their children in the same community." How many actually do this, we do not know. From Muslim leaders, it is said that parents must actively enroll the children (oral communication Professor Torkel Brekke, 26.09.2017).
Also:

Not all immigrants from Muslim countries are Muslims
The alternative to using the number of registered members in Muslim religious communities is to look at how many immigrants from countries with Muslim majority living in Norway, and possibly also include the children that such immigrant couples have received here. This obviously gives rise to high numbers, for several reasons:

  • A certain proportion, even in countries with a Muslim majority, belong to other religions
  • Some have no religious beliefs
  • Many have moved from their country of birth just to get away from a priesthood
  • Many of those who have moved to Norway have abandoned their faith as time goes by.
For this reason, we also expect that the number of immigrants and Norwegian-born immigrant parents with a background in Muslim countries gives a clear overestimate of the number of Muslims in Norway. In our projections, we will try to incorporate the proportion of immigrants from these countries who have not grown up as Muslims using the LKI data, and the proportion who say that they no longer belong to this religion. First, let's look at immigration from Muslim countries.
 
Dec 15, 2011
4,455
9,840
940
Do you actually have any opinion of your own regarding this matter? Or is your only job to pester posters you politically disagree with ad nauseum?
I'd need to get some straight information from a reliable source first.

For example you've chosen not to provide the information I requested a few posts up (you didn't even acknowledge it) but are already deflecting and questioning my position just for challenging your disengenuous rhetoric.

This whole avoid-giving-a-simple-straight-answer-but-criticise-the-person-asking-the-question stuff is old news, ineffectual and has already been called out in this thread and others.
Every time you get called out you go into sleezy deflection mode - asserting the other person has misread you, or denying your own actions (before repeating them moments later) or assert hazy references to set up strawman fallacies.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,806
21,861
1,300
Australia
Not exactly. You’re misreading that statistic. The statistics there are for those groups that are outside of “The Church of Norway.”


There are 4 million+ Christians in Norway, the vast majority of them Lutheran.

There are 166k Muslims.
Ok, you got me here. I misread “religions outside the church of Norway” in this particular link. However, you still haven’t addressed the point about the growth rate of Islam.
 

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,725
1,244
445
deaftourette.com
Your hazy and imprecise interpretations are not sufficient.
Show who is making the specific justifications you are trying to refute.
If you are making an argument based on your own views and projecting them as positions held by others in this discussion then you are straw-manning.
He's talking about this post ...
Maybe he noticed Norway is becoming Muslim, women are getting raped & his country is being radically transformed (invaded)? Once upon a time, "resistance fighters" were called heroes for shooting Germans in the back in the 1940's. Nowadays, a Norwegian merely saying "Islam doesn't belong in Europe" results in hate crime accusations.

So don't play dumb, i.e. it takes two to tango. I might as well throw millions of white Christians into Israel & accuse the locals of "Christianophobia & hatred of whites" when they complain. Morally it would be the same putridness as the leftist multikulti open borders anti-white freaks display in Europe right now.
Eh, why?
A person shot is a person shot.

If you get shot dead by a black gang banger it is less bad for you than if you get shot dead by some crazy white antifa guy or white neo-nazi or other fucked up retard that happens to be white?
You are dead in both cases, but you are good dead in one case and it doesn't count and you are bad dead in the other case and it definitely counts? That is your message?

Shooting is only bad and counts when done by YT? I call bullshit on this. And you sound like a racist.
Not sure how but you didn't see that he was being sarcastic? The "or something" at the end should have tipped you to that. He was mocking SJWs
 

Alx

Member
Jan 22, 2007
18,269
507
1,220
@Lamel I did your homework for you. Pew Research Center estimated the proportion of Muslims in Norway as 3.7% of the total population in 2010 and 5.7% in 2016. What do you think about a 2% jump in 6 years? If we assume a linear relationship, that would make it 6.7% today, or 10.3% in 2030, or 17% in 2050.
Never assume an extrapolation model. Especially with only two data points.
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,982
4,922
380
Let's be real, if these websites were hosting Muslim kids saying radical ideas but not actually doing any planning of sorts on the sites. No one here would be complaining about culled freedom of speech or thought crimes.
Wait, you just described Twitter and Facebook, which last I checked are still up.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DeepEnigma

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,806
21,861
1,300
Australia
Never assume an interpolation model. Especially with only two data points.
You mean extrapolation not interpolation? Why are you linking me an XKCD comic making a joke about extrapolating outside the possible bounds of [0,1] for number of husbands? How is this relevant to an unbounded problem like population growth over time? Why would two data points from census data be insufficient in this instance?
 
Dec 15, 2011
4,455
9,840
940
He's talking about this post ...
1. Thank you.
2. You doing the legwork for the person throwing out hazy assertions and deflecting when challenged on them does not redeem their character.
3. Can either of you point out to me how that reconciles with the objection of:
does it justify terrorist attacks on muslim places of worship? Or violence towards them in any manner? Or white supremacist rhetoric?
Where is what you quoted specifically justifying the things being objected to?

In tandem, we are seeing argument against extrapolation - but it would seem that extrapolation is very much required to fill in the gaps to make these statements work together.

Extrapolation good?
Extrapolation bad?

Make a decision.

This whole topic is disingenuously framed and steered - from its title to the OP to the constant refusal to acknowledge relevant factors that OP refuses to entertain. This as been called out over and over. Doubling down shows a determination to remain narrow minded and to repeatedly retrofit cherry-picked details to protect a favoured and pre-determined conclusion rather than sincerely engage with broader views.
 
Last edited:

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,449
146
775
Oh and here’s the source for the Pew data to address the source whining from earlier. Debunk away.

I believe your growth rate model is too simplistic, and working off of too many assumptions, and not accounting various factors. Here is an interesting calculator to play around with:


I inserted some basic numbers in there to plot the growth of Muslims with an assumed 3.49 fertility rate (assumed that of Pakistanis), starting population of 150,000 (as the calculator begins in 2013), a predominantly young population (10-40), net immigration of 5,000 per year (guesswork).

Comes to about 500,000 Muslims (or more accurately, those of muslim background), approximately 9% of the population. An increase yes, but that is to be expected due to higher birthrates (as you stated).

Regardless, I stand by the assertion that increasing muslim populations should not drum up hysteria to the level that people will subtly start justifying the motives of white supremacists.
 
Last edited:

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,725
1,244
445
deaftourette.com
On topic:

This is disgusting! He killed someone at his home and then went out to try and kill people in their place of worship. I'm glad that old man stopped him and I hope he's ok.

Off topic (my observations):

Every time there's a post like this...

"Muslims are invading!"
"They're having more babies than white people"

Talk about the shooter? Nope. He's not important because there's not enough info. Even when more comes out (like him having killed someone), it's either dismissed or not even brought up. No... The targets are more worthy of discussion. This happened on the Christchurch thread and the El Paso thread. And now this one.

And at least one poster tries to slyly absolve the shooter as being in the right in his or her actions.

And no one calls them out on it except the person(s) most dogpile on.
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,449
146
775
1. Thank you.
2. You doing the legwork for the person throwing out hazy assertions and deflecting when challenged on them does not redeem their character.
3. Can either of you point out to me how that reconciles with the objection of:
I told you to follow the line of quoting to that post. You interjected into a different conversation without reading where it originated. That "legwork" is your responsibility. I appreciate that @DeafTourette has the patience to further clarify that.

Maybe he noticed Norway is becoming Muslim, women are getting raped & his country is being radically transformed (invaded)? Once upon a time, "resistance fighters" were called heroes for shooting Germans in the back in the 1940's. Nowadays, a Norwegian merely saying "Islam doesn't belong in Europe" results in hate crime accusations.

So don't play dumb, i.e. it takes two to tango. I might as well throw millions of white Christians into Israel & accuse the locals of "Christianophobia & hatred of whites" when they complain. Morally it would be the same putridness as the leftist multikulti open borders anti-white freaks display in Europe right now.
Those questions were posed to the above quoted post, not to what Matt404 had said, because my initial "3.2%" post that Matt404 responded to was in response to Ruvikx. I should have better clarified initially.

As for the Ruvikx post above, I choose to interpret this in one of 2 ways:

At best: He is being distasteful.
At worst: He is trying to justify these actions as "resistance."

The reality is somewhere in the middle, and it's still abhorrent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DeafTourette

DeafTourette

Member
Apr 23, 2018
1,725
1,244
445
deaftourette.com
1. Thank you.
2. You doing the legwork for the person throwing out hazy assertions and deflecting when challenged on them does not redeem their character.
3. Can either of you point out to me how that reconciles with the objection of:

Where is what you quoted specifically justifying the things being objected to?

In tandem, we are seeing argument against extrapolation - but it would seem that extrapolation is very much required to fill in the gaps to make these statements work together.

Extrapolation good?
Extrapolation bad?

Make a decision.

This whole topic is disingenuously framed and steered - from its title to the OP to the constant refusal to acknowledge relevant factors that OP refuses to entertain. This as been called out over and over. Doubling down shows a determination to remain narrow minded and to repeatedly retrofit cherry-picked details to protect a favoured and pre-determined conclusion rather than sincerely engage with broader views.
1. I bolded where. He mentioned "resistance fighters shooting Nazi's in the back" were called "heroes" but now if they so much as criticize Muslims in their country, they're called racists. So if they could just shoot them they'd be heroes instead of racists. He's implying that what's stopping them from being called such is the current SJW hysteria gripping most of Europe. He even calls it an invasion... As if these refugees are storming the country with AK-47s marching in the streets.

2. I think statistical extrapolation is fine. We do it here in the US. The FEAR brought about by reading the extrapolation statistics is another matter, I believe. I'm not saying it isn't warranted but the extremes some have gone to to "combat it" is troubling. And I say this as a "minority" in the US... Because the issues affecting black, Asian and other minorities will be put on the back burner in favor of a Latino majority.

I think that's what you're getting at?
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,806
21,861
1,300
Australia
I believe your growth rate model is too simplistic, and working off of too many assumptions, and not accounting various factors. Here is an interesting calculator to play around with:


I inserted some basic numbers in there to plot the growth of Muslims with an assumed 3.49 fertility rate (assumed that of Pakistanis), starting population of 150,000 (as the calculator begins in 2013), a predominantly young population (10-40), net immigration of 5,000 per year (guesswork).

Comes to about 500,000 Muslims, approximately 9% of the population. An increase yes, but that is to be expected due to higher birthrates (as you stated).
I get that you’re trying really hard to debunk my thumb suck estimation, but it’s not fair to use different assumptions. I stated that I used Pew Research Data that estimated 5.7% of the 5.2 million population as Muslim in 2016. This is a starting population of 296k and results in ~800k by 2050 or 13.3% of the projected 6 million population. That is a huge demographic change that requires some pretty epic mental gymnastics to handwave. Keep in mind we are talking about a religious group, i.e. a pre-defined set of ideas, not a racial group or other such immutables.
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,449
146
775
I get that you’re trying really hard to debunk my thumb suck estimation, but it’s not fair to use different assumptions. I stated that I used Pew Research Data that estimated 5.7% of the 5.2 million population as Muslim in 2016. This is a starting population of 296k and results in ~800k by 2050 or 13.3% of the projected 6 million population. That is a huge demographic change that requires some pretty epic mental gymnastics to handwave. Keep in mind we are talking about a religious group, i.e. a pre-defined set of ideas, not a racial group or other such immutables.
I used the 166K (3.2%) statistic from 2018 from here, which I linked earlier: https://www.ssb.no/en/trosamf/
The calculator begins in 2013 so I reduced it to 150,000. The rest of the metrics I've put in as fairly as possible (fertility rate supplied by you actually), with a rough estimate of immigration as I was unable to find accurate figures. We are also assuming that everyone born from muslim background will stay adherent.

But you know, we are both amateurs, let's just use PEW's projections with their own numbers by 2050: http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/religions/muslims

They predict 8.9% by 2050, approximately 500,000. Hey I came pretty damn close! (though with different parameters)

I am not trying to antagonize you like you think I am. I am not handwaving away the demographic shift - yes it is large even at 9%. But also realize that your 17% and 25% numbers were completely wrong.


Now that we have that squared away, how would you like to reconnect this discussion with the thread topic?
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
4,455
9,840
940
1. I bolded where. He mentioned "resistance fighters shooting Nazi's in the back" were called "heroes" but now if they so much as criticize Muslims in their country, they're called racists. So if they could just shoot them they'd be heroes instead of racists. He's implying that what's stopping them from being called such is the current SJW hysteria gripping most of Europe. He even calls it an invasion... As if these refugees are storming the country with AK-47s marching in the streets.

2. I think statistical extrapolation is fine. We do it here in the US. The FEAR brought about by reading the extrapolation statistics is another matter, I believe. I'm not saying it isn't warranted but the extremes some have gone to to "combat it" is troubling. And I say this as a "minority" in the US... Because the issues affecting black, Asian and other minorities will be put on the back burner in favor of a Latino majority.

I think that's what you're getting at?
1. I think you're having to fill in a number of gaps to come to that conclusion. Better to seek clarification before proceeding. I've seen far more direct historical comparisons of this nature be thrust forward for soundbites and heard equal levels of endorsement and condemnation for them. But if people are running on interpretations and insinuations there's enormous scope to project personal stances into them and run with it. Things get messy that way.

2. Then we're agreed - the extrapolation being employed to reconcile the statement and objection isn't helpful.

I told you to follow the line of quoting to that post.
I asked you to substantiate your objections and detail them. You deflected. You were called out on your deflection. You're now pouting that I didn't jump to your orders and trying to assign blame.

You were unclear. I sought clarification. You refused to clarify and chose deflection instead. You were called out for it. You double down.

I do not recognise your assumed authority.

It's up to you if you want to engage sincerely.
It on you and you alone when you refuse to.
 
Last edited:

Alx

Member
Jan 22, 2007
18,269
507
1,220
You mean extrapolation not interpolation? Why are you linking me an XKCD comic making a joke about extrapolating outside the possible bounds of [0,1] for number of husbands? How is this relevant to an unbounded problem like population growth over time? Why would two data points from census data be insufficient in this instance?
I obviously meant extrapolation, as stated in the correction I made before your post, and as could be deduced from both your original post and the xkcd comics.
And yes extrapolating from two data points is silly, because that's not enough data to validate your model (how do you even estimate the standard deviation from your assumed linear law ?). Besides population growth isn't an unbounded problem, by your own flawed logic you could extrapolate that by 2410, the population of Norway would be 137% Muslim !

Two points aren't enough for extrapolation (and linear models hardly ever happen in real life).
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,137
1,563
435
It’s such an asinine argument to make because it suggests that race and gender are causal factors in likelihood to commit a mass shooting.
Agree partially with race but gender? Statistically speaking the data overwhelmingly supports gender being a significant variable here.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
4,991
3,801
625
Agree partially with race but gender? Statistically speaking the data overwhelmingly supports gender being a significant variable here.
Looking at only the two quotes, I gotta say @matt404au is correct. He said gender is not a causal factor, which is correct. Being male does not cause a person to start mass shooting at all. You are correct that statistically most of them ended up being men, but I am not sure how you see that as a variable. It seems more static to variable.
 

crowbrow

Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,137
1,563
435
Looking at only the two quotes, I gotta say @matt404au is correct. He said gender is not a causal factor, which is correct. Being male does not cause a person to start mass shooting at all. You are correct that statistically most of them ended up being men, but I am not sure how you see that as a variable. It seems more static to variable.
You're right, is not causal but it can be considered a variable that provides predictive information. It's a variable because it can vary from different genders and there has been female shooters so is not completely fixed.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,806
21,861
1,300
Australia
I used the 166K (3.2%) statistic from 2018 from here, which I linked earlier: https://www.ssb.no/en/trosamf/
The calculator begins in 2013 so I reduced it to 150,000. The rest of the metrics I've put in as fairly as possible (fertility rate supplied by you actually), with a rough estimate of immigration as I was unable to find accurate figures. We are also assuming that everyone born from muslim background will stay adherent.

But you know, we are both amateurs, let's just use PEW's projections with their own numbers by 2050: http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/religions/muslims

They predict 8.9% by 2050, approximately 500,000. Hey I came pretty damn close! (though with different parameters)

I am not trying to antagonize you like you think I am. I am not handwaving away the demographic shift - yes it is large even at 9%. But also realize that your 17% and 25% numbers were completely wrong.


Now that we have that squared away, how would you like to reconnect this discussion with the thread topic?
Like I said, it was a thumb suck estimate that you’re honing in on to deflect from the main point that you still haven’t addressed, which is that the rate of change is the reason people are concerned, not the current 3.2% or 5.7% — whichever statistic you want to go with — that you were using to be snidely dismissive of what ruvikx said. The growth is the problem because one day the minority will become the majority, at which point it will no longer be Norway; it will instead be yet another Islamic country. These fears are justified; violence in response is not. Persecution of minorities is clearly not the right answer but then neither is allowing the minority to usurp the majority. The solution must therefore take the form of prevention, i.e. stricter immigration. Norway isn’t even close to being the worst example of what happens when you allow high levels of immigration from less culturally compatible regions — we simply need to look next door to Sweden for that.
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,449
146
775
Like I said, it was a thumb suck estimate that you’re honing in on to deflect from the main point that you still haven’t addressed, which is that the rate of change is the reason people are concerned, not the current 3.2% or 5.7% — whichever statistic you want to go with — that you were using to be snidely dismissive of what ruvikx said. The growth is the problem because one day the minority will become the majority, at which point it will no longer be Norway; it will instead be yet another Islamic country. These fears are justified; violence in response is not. Persecution of minorities is clearly not the right answer but then neither is allowing the minority to usurp the majority. The solution must therefore take the form of prevention, i.e. stricter immigration. Norway isn’t even close to being the worst example of what happens when you allow high levels of immigration from less culturally compatible regions — we simply need to look next door to Sweden for that.
I understand it was an estimation, but it was way off base and would alter the entire discussion if I had believed it, so let’s use actual numbers.

The pew projections show that the rate of change is not high enough to “usurp the majority” in 2050; nowhere close actually. This the fear of an “Islamic Europe” is irrational. This irrational fear drives attacks such as the one that occurred in this mosque. This irrational fear can be capitalized upon online, and lead to radicalization by white supremacists.

Will it be a tough transition? Undoubtedly. Will better integrative mechanisms and family planning be needed? For sure. Does any of that justify white supremacism or persecution of minorities? Like you stated, no.


Now if you want to project further, into 2100 or 2200 or beyond, it’s far too difficult to say as the landscape of the world will be very different from what it is now.

Source: http://www.globalreligiousfutures.org/religions/muslims
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Alx

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,806
21,861
1,300
Australia
I understand it was an estimation, but it was way off base and would alter the entire discussion if I had believed it, so let’s use actual numbers.

The pew projections show that the rate of change is not high enough to “usurp the majority.” Not now, not in 2050. This the fear of an “Islamic Europe” is irrational. This irrational fear drives attacks such as the one that occurred in this mosque. This irrational fear can be capitalized upon online, and lead to radicalization by white supremacists.
Why is it irrational for natives to want to pass their country on to their offspring, inclusive of culture, customs, traditions, etc.? Is this not at the core of any argument on indigenous rights, i.e. wanting to preserve their culture? Why the inconsistent application of your rules?

I reject your assertion that the fears are irrational and unfounded and suggest that you are the one trying to alter the course of the conversation by continuing to deflect and obfuscate the point. You are framing your argument around an arbitrary endpoint of 2050 and are still missing the point that the rate of growth is the problem, not the magnitude of the proportion at any particular moment. Whether Islam becomes the majority in 2050 or 2080 or 2110 is beside the point. Do you really think that a native is going to care whether their country changes hands during their grandchildren’s or great-grandchildren’s or great-great-grandchildren’s lifetime? It is a very real possibility — perhaps an inevitability if current conditions persist — in many traditionally Christian countries and you calling it irrational doesn’t make it so. Moreover, Islam doesn’t need to be a majority to fundamentally alter the cultural fabric. Just look at the problems in countries like England, Germany and Sweden.

The fear of permanent demographic change and desire to preserve culture are not irrational. Resorting to violence is but you seem to be intimating that any fear of demographic change is inherently irrational and therefore must result in violence. This is myopic. There are other options besides violence. They can elect politicians who will limit immigration from less culturally compatible regions and promote cultural integration for those immigrants who are accepted in. This is what other Western countries like the USA, UK, Italy are doing, but you lot just call them irrational, racist, xenophobic, and a litany of other labels intended to make yourself feel like some grand moral crusader rather than actually help anyone or anything. But you’ve pushed it too far. You’re running on fumes because no one cares about your labels anymore, but you’re still desperate for your daily hit of moral satisfaction so you apply more and more layers of spin to justify your continued use of them.

I, and any other rational person, oppose (genuine) racism and sexism because they presume individual-level attributes based on group-level statistics, i.e. they assume that the mean applies to the entire range. This is demonstrably false and someone’s sex or gender does not tell you what they are likely to think. Religion, however, does not belong in the same basket as it tells you precisely what someone thinks. That’s the entire purpose of a religion: a set of ideas that all of its followers must adhere to. Your arguments throughout this thread continually conflate religion with race so that you can leverage the rhetorical power that comes with it. This comes from either dishonesty or ideology — I’m not quite sure with you yet.

The problem of increasing white supremacy does not begin with irrational fear of non-whites; it begins with rational fear of permanent religious and cultural demographic change spurred on to irrational and extreme responses by the likes of you pushing change too quickly, too fervently, and often for selfish reasons.
 

Lamel

Member
Nov 2, 2009
11,449
146
775
Why is it irrational for natives to want to pass their country on to their offspring, inclusive of culture, customs, traditions, etc.? Is this not at the core of any argument on indigenous rights, i.e. wanting to preserve their culture? Why the inconsistent application of your rules?
That's not irrational at all. What's irrational is assuming that you will be unable to pass on said culture because 5-10% of your population comprises of Muslims.


you lot just call them irrational, racist, xenophobic, and a litany of other labels intended to make yourself feel like some grand moral crusader rather than actually help anyone or anything. But you’ve pushed it too far. You’re running on fumes because no one cares about your labels anymore, but you’re still desperate for your daily hit of moral satisfaction so you apply more and more layers of spin to justify your continued use of them.
This is just speculation and assumption on your end.

I, and any other rational person, oppose (genuine) racism and sexism because they presume individual-level attributes based on group-level statistics, i.e. they assume that the mean applies to the entire range. This is demonstrably false and someone’s sex or gender does not tell you what they are likely to think. Religion, however, does not belong in the same basket as it tells you precisely what someone thinks. That’s the entire purpose of a religion: a set of ideas that all of its followers must adhere to.
This is well out of the scope of this discussion, but not all adherents of the religion apply it to their lives uniformly. This is true for all abrahamic faiths, as well as non-abrahamic faiths.

Your arguments throughout this thread continually conflate religion with race so that you can leverage the rhetorical power that comes with it. This comes from either dishonesty or ideology — I’m not quite sure with you yet.
Again, this is a paranoid assumption on your end.

The problem of increasing white supremacy does not begin with irrational fear of non-whites; it begins with rational fear of permanent religious and cultural demographic change spurred on to irrational and extreme responses by the likes of you pushing change too quickly, too fervently, and often for selfish reasons.
I am not pushing arbitrary change; the fact of the matter is that Muslims are in Europe and will be here for the foreseeable future. I am denouncing extreme ideological and violent response to this change; response that is far out of proportion to the change itself. Others in this thread (Ruvikx) are equating this response with "resistance fighters" in WW2, and opposed to it being labeled as "terrorism."
 
Apr 18, 2014
2,691
1,406
670
P-Town
I am personally confused how a thread titled "Oslo, Norway Mosque Shooting; possible link to 8chan, being investigated as terrorism" was "obviously" about the radicalization of white males. Aside from the "problematic linkage" to an ideology.

Hopefully you are too much of a coward to get radicalized into violence.
Go on Stantifa, tell us more about radicalization and violence.
 
Last edited:
  • Fire
Reactions: Schrödinger's cat

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,806
21,861
1,300
Australia
That's not irrational at all. What's irrational is assuming that you will be unable to pass on said culture because 5-10% of your population comprises of Muslims.




This is just speculation and assumption on your end.



This is well out of the scope of this discussion, but not all adherents of the religion apply it to their lives uniformly. This is true for all abrahamic faiths, as well as non-abrahamic faiths.



Again, this is a paranoid assumption on your end.



I am not pushing arbitrary change; the fact of the matter is that Muslims are in Europe and will be here for the foreseeable future. I am denouncing extreme ideological and violent response to this change; response that is far out of proportion to the change itself. Others in this thread (Ruvikx) are equating this response with "resistance fighters" in WW2, and opposed to it being labeled as "terrorism."
I see that you're well versed in the Ree tactics of discourse: laser sharp focus on semantics and attempting to dismantle your opponent's arguments by purposefully misinterpreting, deflecting, and distoring while adding nothing of your own. Even now, you continue to focus on absolute numbers (5-10%) and ignore the entire point which is that the problem is the rate of change, irrespective of whatever arbitrary temporal bounds you wish to impose. Worthless.
 

Ke0

Member
Aug 10, 2012
2,166
545
600
Reading, Berkshire
Tell us more, fortune teller.

If the premise of your argument is that you surely know how a group of people would react to a hypothetical situation...

Do you know just how many "radical" muslims saying this same rhetoric have been banned and online groups dismantled? A shitload, and I can do a cautionary search on this site and I'm doubting highly I'll find a lot of outrage over their free speech being trampled.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
13,388
24,439
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Do you know just how many "radical" muslims saying this same rhetoric have been banned and online groups dismantled?
I have no clue how many. Could you provide...

Ah. How precise.

and I can do a cautionary search on this site and I'm doubting highly I'll find a lot of outrage over their free speech being trampled.
The ongoing obsession with how a group reacts to something, and how their reaction isn't outraged enough is a fascinating phenomenon. You're saying nothing of substance here. Is your accusation that GAF (as a monolithic, hive mind entity) is hypocritical in its outrage toward muslims being silenced? Do you see a lot of topics on GAF where this is brought to the community's attention?

That is why I initially responded the way I did. Repeating your same empty inferences is not an answer to my question. How do you know about muslim groups that have been banned, and how do you know how GAF would react to your hypothetical situation? Making unfalsifiable claims might make you feel righteous, but it's a worthless addition to the conversation.
 

Cucked SoyBoy

Member
Dec 18, 2018
463
624
280
Regardless, I stand by the assertion that increasing muslim populations should not drum up hysteria to the level that people will subtly start justifying the motives of white supremacists.

Well yeah, people are getting "hysterical" about increasing muslim populations because:

A) The leaders of White nations didn't ask their people if they could import infinite muslims, they just started doing it.

B) Leaders of White nations have not indicated that there is any "upper limit" on how many muslims they are wanting to import, so when you mentioned 5%-10%, you have no assurance that the numbers will stay that low.

C) You don't need a big number of muslims to have big problems. France's muslim population was estimated at around 9% in 2017. So if attacks like the Bataclan, Charlie Hebdo, or the Bastille Day truck attacks can happen with only 9%, what's going to happen above 10%? Maybe Europeans don't want to find out.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: ruvikx and Oner