You solve the problem by arresting and expelling the very people of whom the secret service or national security board, or whatever the respective organization is called in your country says: "Those are a present and immediate threat", and by punishing those who slip through your net as hard as possible when they commit their first crime. You solve the problem by expelling those people who claim that they are refugees, but very obviously are not (carry weapons, lead or attend hate speeches, attack people). I'm not saying expel everyone ("them", huh). But, no mercy for the bad ones.

Well known simple fact, not all terrorists are refugees or foreigners, mostly they are home grown, radicalised while travelling to Syria, Libya etc... You can't expel home grown terrorists!

Its funny how some people pick holes other people's solutions. Then the same people now provide ideas/solutions that have holes so huge ... you could fly an Air bus plane through it :lol:

You apparently know shit about my country, so how about you keep bitching about your own and STFU? Edit: And frankly, reading this thread (which I regret) makes me glad I have very little to do with this site now... the atmosphere is frankly sickening to behold and is just another group of people whos 'solutions' are going to make the problem worse...

Its normal for people to have different and opposing views on things, even disagreements because we are not clones of each other. But why that makes you appear so bitter and angry mystifies me

Occam's Razor: Which is more likely, that these outlets profit from writing things their readership supports and agrees with or that they publish unpopular, fringe opinions few agree with yet still somehow remain both popular and profitable? If you look at this soberly, you will be forced to acknowledge that the "ignore it, it's just clickbait" excuse for article after article, website after webiste is rather silly.

Hodgman's analysis of your post is correct, and your use of Occam's Razor is just an attempt to sound credible by molding a series of logical conclusions to suit your needs rather than to draw realistic conclusions which would, in fact, heavily damage your case.

Online publications profit from viewer traffic, and one of the best ways to generate traffic is to post something controversial or outlandish, hence why news coverage is never about how a car accident didn't occur that day.

In order to drive your case forward you have to intentionally ignore very glaringly obvious facts.

Among them:
#1: It is a fact that not all whites are racist.
#2: Being white along factually does not make you a plague on the planet.
#3: The future of mankind is factually not based on stopping white men simply because they are white.
#4: Not all white people are evil.
#5: “I get it: as a straight white male, I’m the worst thing on Earth,” is a factually incorrect statement.

These fringe statements are the product of brainwashing and very clearly only represent a radicalized extremist minority, and to suggest that just because they got posted on Washington Post (for example) means that the vast majority of their readers agrees with them is simply bizarre. It's blatant and obvious straw-manning, and trying to paint the left with a brush stained with radicalized extremist viewpoints only serves to diminish your voice.
Rational people know that not all right-wingers are white supremacists, and not all left-wingers are self-loathing or white-loathing nut-jobs. Not even a majority in either case.


L. Spiro

Online publications profit from viewer traffic, and one of the best ways to generate traffic is to post something controversial or outlandish, hence why news coverage is never about how a car accident didn't occur that day.

It is true that news outlets are not in the habit of chronicling quotidian events. As they say in the business, we publish when man bites dog, not necessarily when dog bites man. But that in no way means that these articles are published because they were "outlandish" or "controversial." They could be newsworthy because they represent a growing world view. Or they may be published to challenge the readership. Or the editorial staff could agree with the point of view.

Among them:
#1: It is a fact that not all whites are racist.
#2: Being white along factually does not make you a plague on the planet.
#3: The future of mankind is factually not based on stopping white men simply because they are white.
#4: Not all white people are evil.
#5: “I get it: as a straight white male, I’m the worst thing on Earth,” is a factually incorrect statement.

Well, at least on this we can agree. (I have encountered a number of people claiming to want to reform society who would not).

These fringe statements are the product of brainwashing

Agree again, given the lack of interrogation and acceptance of dissent in certain academic circles. It is, effectively, brainwashing.

and very clearly only represent a radicalized extremist minority,

I know of nothing that would support this statement and am highly skeptical given how damaging confronting this would be.

and to suggest that just because they got posted on Washington Post (for example) means that the vast majority of their readers agrees with them is simply bizarre.

When they don't agree you tend to hear of it. cf. New York Times hiring climate change 'skeptic' Bret Stephens and angry reader response
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/public-editor/bret-stephens-climate-change-liz-spayd-public-editor.html

It's blatant and obvious straw-manning, and trying to paint the left with a brush stained with radicalized extremist viewpoints only serves to diminish your voice.

Or, alternately, it is a poorly addressed rot within the Left that drives true believers to apoplexy when pointed out, just as it does on the Right.

Note, by the way, that you are the third poster to read this as a broad condemnation of the Left, despite my initial statement about Left and Right sometimes being right. I find this curious. Why not adopt the position, "a subset on the Left believes this, but I disagree with them?" Why the elaborate lengths to deflect and minimize any criticism whatsoever?

Rational people know that not all right-wingers are white supremacists, and not all left-wingers are self-loathing or white-loathing nut-jobs. Not even a majority in either case.

Sure, but our level of basal rationality is up for debate and likely waning, as exhibited by gridlock and political dysfunction. We appear to be less given to compromise, evolving separate realities (#alternatefacts) and increasingly polarized. It is foolish to stick our heads in the sand and ignore this, and the only way back is self-criticism.

These fringe statements are the product of brainwashing and very clearly only represent a radicalized extremist minority, and to suggest that just because they got posted on Washington Post (for example) means that the vast majority of their readers agrees with them is simply bizarre. It's blatant and obvious straw-manning, and trying to paint the left with a brush stained with radicalized extremist viewpoints only serves to diminish your voice.
Rational people know that not all right-wingers are white supremacists, and not all left-wingers are self-loathing or white-loathing nut-jobs. Not even a majority in either case.

L. Spiro

I disagree. If you actually talk to many American's, you'd be surprised how many are 'hard left' or 'hard right'.

But that doesn't even matter. The real problem is that the 'hard left' and the 'hard right' are driving both the political and media landscape. Even if its just a minority, its a minority that has power and influence. If it was just a couple of blow-hards on the internet then I would see no reason to care, but we're talking about entire political parties, entire news channels, and actual legislation.

I hate to bring up Godwin's law but... not everyone in Germany would agree with the atrocities that occurred during the holocaust, but clearly enough did, or at least enough were willing to turn a blind eye. And no, I'm not trying to draw a parallel between what is happening to the Muslims and what happened to the Jews, I'm simply giving a historical example where a 'radicalized extremist minority' ended up with more power than it should have gotten (I shouldn't have to bold that, but from experience I know it will be ignored otherwise... guaranteed someone will still post the response: 'but Trump just wants more border security not to gas them all' or something equally tangential...).

And frankly, reading this thread (which I regret) makes me glad I have very little to do with this site now... the atmosphere is frankly sickening to behold and is just another group of people whos 'solutions' are going to make the problem worse...

It's definitely hard to recommend a site to someone if it needs to be prefaced with "people only occasionally suggest killing everyone in your country, and those posts usually get deleted."

Well known simple fact, not all terrorists are refugees or foreigners, mostly they are home grown, radicalised while travelling to Syria, Libya etc... You can't expel home grown terrorists!

You're right that you cannot expel citizens (single-nationality citizens that is, not double-nationality citizens). The "well-known fact" that you quote is however yet another lie, but even if it was true: if a citizen indeed goes abroad into a terror training camp (which is explicitly forbidden), you have the legal means to arrest them immediately upon returning. Arresting them and locking them away is not perfect, it is not a permanent solution, I am aware. But for the time being it's better than nothing. While you are locked up, your ability of hurting innocent people is limited. Alas, that isn't happening.

A better "well-known fact" than "most terror/crime/bad stuff comes from citizens" is that crime in general is registered and reported very selectively (at least in Germany, I wouldn't know about UK). When, a year ago, there was a complaint about the police in one particular city not recording tens of thousands cases of theft from a particular group of people at all, the police commisioner was questioned. His answer was: "Oh come on, they're poor people and in every case that was their first offense". When asked how he could possibly know it was their first offense since police didn't even care to verify their identities, he couldn't answer that.

Whenever a violent crime happens and it's someone from a particular group of people, you only hear "a man" on the news. Well, not always, to be fair, this week both the Syrian who stabbed his psycho counsellor, and the guy who attacked the child and its mother were "properly attributed". That was most surprising, usually it's not the case. Usually, when a foreigner with double-citizenship commits a crime, it is much emphasized "a citizen" (oh shock! a citizen! one of us!), but if a Tunisian drug dealer drives a truck through a pedestrian zone, then the fact that he is Tunisian does not play a role for the crime. That's selective news, and thus a lie.

Also, a lot of the radicalization initiates in loco by people, and with people whom you could easily expel because they are either tolerated aliens or illegal border-crossers who claim being refugees, but they are not politically pursued. Few, very few (Pierre V. being a famous example) cannot be expelled, but they could be arrested for what they are doing, and they could be denied welfare benefits. And yes, they could be held in a prison without internet access. You know, the very important, much stressed right of freedom of information that prisoners retain despite being criminals does not mean you have to have a 42'' TV in your prison cell, and it does not mean you have to have broadband internet access. A single TV in the common room for everybody perfectly satisfies your civil rights after you have turned against society. It is not necessary for a felon to have a better life than a worker, and it is not necessary to provide an arrested agitator of hate and violence with the means to continue his "work" from within prison, via internet.

But about the expel part: As I've pointed out earlier, the ever-alleged "rights" of staying that everybody who isn't a citizen allegedly has exist only if they have demonstrated that they are politically pursued, that is the explicit wording of the law. Being a foreigner from a poor country or a country where there is war is not enough. Being from a country where some people are politically pursued is not enough -- you must be pursued (and, for political reasons, not for religion or the color of your skin, or another reason). Even being in concrete danger for whatever reason is not enough. No rights, if the state decides that you are undesirable, you're gone (well, in theory). No burden of proof of anything, it's enough to say: "We don't want you here".

For humanitarian reasons, it is generally the correct thing to protect people who are genuinely fleeing from war and running for their lives anyway, even if they do not have a right to ask for this. As long as we can afford, we should definitively continue doing so. It is the right thing to do. But that's about people who are victims.

That doesn't mean we have to be stupid, it doesn't mean we must tolerate everybody, and feed everybody. If you hold hate speeches in your mosque, or if you make public statements like "kill infidels, build califate" then you have just proven that you are not a victim, you're a perpetrator. If you carry weapons, you have just proven that you are not a victim. If you are a member of an openly criminal/terroristic organization, even if it calls itself a boxing club (kidding?), the moment your organization posts videos on youtube about overthrowing the state, you're not a victim. Heck, you're not even remotely tolerable.

If you attack people (even without killing them), if you got caught stealing for the 5th time this week (that's not an exaggeration, it's what the manager in our grocer store in town told me on a day when one of our completely harmless guests started a brawl 3 meters in front of me when being caught stealing, they needed three men to subdue him), then you are, too, definitively not a victim. If you're dealing with drugs, you're not a victim, even more so if you use the revenue from your drug deals to fund a terror attack.

Those people you can arrest, those you can expel, and it should be done.

We have enough laws on the books to deal with the issues we have now concerning hate speech, terrorism, extremist violence. So I don't see the need to jump off a cliff to enact draconian measures to stop these acts. In terms of Europe, UK in particular, it seems their citizens have the right idea. They can clearly separate the bad from the good (at least according to the media). People on terror watchlists and have been legitimately vetted to be legitimate threats (website viewing, actual travel, social media posts, criminal record, known associates) should be watched closely, among other things. Deported/expelled, as long there is compelling evidence, I'd say go for it.

If Europe truly wants to put an end to this, then a lot of these North African and Middle Eastern countries need to be stabilized and engaged with. Otherwise, they'll be complaining about immigration for decades to come.

Occam's Razor: Which is more likely, that these outlets profit from writing things their readership supports and agrees with or that they publish unpopular, fringe opinions few agree with yet still somehow remain both popular and profitable?

We all have morbid curiosity when idiots speak. I didn't read the articles, but I will make an argument based on the titles alone since that seems to have been the original championing point you made.

Kinda what spiro said, news sources that touch on extreme subjects, or radical viewpoints will always garner a lot of attention. A bit of a stretch but in the late 1930's it was almost impossible to turn on a radio in the US, and not hear Hitler ranting, and raving. People however, weren't tuning in for their daily fill of ideology, however, were tuning in for a morbid curiosity of a violent man who had enslaved most of Europe (And just a general fear that war would inevitably reach them).

You will always have fringe groups. And as "Rational, and Intellectual" people we will always gravitate to paying attention to, and pointing at fringe groups, not because we support them in any way, shape, or form. But because we are genuinely intrigued how these group's came to the conclusions that they did.

Occam's Razor: Which is more likely, that these outlets profit from writing things their readership supports and agrees with or that they publish unpopular, fringe opinions few agree with yet still somehow remain both popular and profitable?

We all have morbid curiosity when idiots speak. I didn't read the articles, but I will make an argument based on the titles alone since that seems to have been the original championing point you made.
Kinda what spiro said, news sources that touch on extreme subjects, or radical viewpoints will always garner a lot of attention. A bit of a stretch but in the late 1930's it was almost impossible to turn on a radio in the US, and not hear Hitler ranting, and raving. People however, weren't tuning in for their daily fill of ideology, however, were tuning in for a morbid curiosity of a violent man who had enslaved most of Europe (And just a general fear that war would inevitably reach them).
You will always have fringe groups. And as "Rational, and Intellectual" people we will always gravitate to paying attention to, and pointing at fringe groups, not because we support them in any way, shape, or form. But because we are genuinely intrigued how these group's came to the conclusions that they did.

I take your point but doesn't your example undermine it a bit? The heart of the issue is this: Do these articles reflect a small, fringe sentiment which has no traction, published solely to shock & profiteer, and which can safely be dismissed? Or do they represent some wider phenomenon, maybe even an emerging ideology whose sentiments are becoming normalized, just as the Tea Party and its sentiments (particularly conspiracy theory) became normalized on the Right?

In your 30s example, if I understand you correctly, news outlets were a conduit. But a conduit for what? Couldn't we say they reflected the phenomenon of a rising ideology emerging from Europe?

There's definitely a rising fringe left enhanced by insulated university culture, and there's definitely a rising fringe right enhanced by newly formed tailored news sites.

The question is what the long term implications of both of these are. Odds are when people graduate college they'll grow out of "SJWism", and when people catch unreliable news outlets reporting incorrectly they'll drop those as well.

The more important question will be which parts of these ideologies will be assimilated into our larger cultures. I think at least from the fringe right there's going to be a very large mistrust of media organizations for decades.