Shut up and play nice: How the Western world is limiting free speech

That's purely a matter of opinion, so there's no point in arguing about it. As a non-American, it's pretty obvious why/that you don't want America to be dominant. As an American, it's pretty obvious why I do.

> Quite apart from the jackass immorality of it, maintaining hegemony implies indebting America to the point of economic collapse while generating more and more enemies.

I don't think that's true at all. You don't need to spend billions of dollars on costly wars in order to keep yourself in control. You just have to render other people irrelevant, which is exactly what would happen to the Arabs if the world's dependence on crude oil were to vanish.

> The objective instead should be to maintain the quality of life of American citizens.

Which America's global power contributes to.

> And there are all kinds of countries, from Japan to Switzerland to Norway to Slovenia, none of which attempt world domination, where citizens can live fine.

And they pay the price for it - literally. Energy costs are much higher in Japan, for example. If I were living in Japan, I wouldn't be able to cool my entire house during the summer (or heat it during the winter). I've experienced it in Tokyo myself, and it's a significant degradation of quality of life.

> Many across the spectrum, from Dennis Kucinich to Stephen Walt to Ron Paul, have explained this better than I can here; if you are interested in the geopolitics I suggest you look them up.

I know exactly what they've expressed, and I agree with a lot of it. You're still missing my point, which is that you can achieve global hegemony and domination much more effectively through technological innovation that you can through military might.

> Your points about history are equally preposterous. Just because modern middle eastern states are young it does not mean that middle eastern civilisation is young. By that logic, China and Greece are both younger than the USA.

Once again, the age of the "civilization" is entirely irrelevant to modern geopolitical concerns. The age of the state, on the other hand, can at times demonstrate political stability/power.

Point I was trying to make is the militancy is an end in itself and the belief structures are simply bent to serve it.. in refutation of the idea that militancy in the muslim world is peculiarly religious.

They find religious justifications for operational killings in order not to abandon their religion, not because their religion demands it. US forces just abandon religion when it suits them and call themselves a secular nation. The British made themselves a whole new religion answerable to the head of state. These are all just ways of twisting religion to serve power.

I personally think you could in fact be doing the middle east the biggest favour if you could make the global oil price drop to zero. At least to the people, if not the current rulers.

That's not what maintaining Hegemony means. Hegemony means Kicking other people around.

Did you mean something else, like Energy Independence? Or perhaps Being a world leader in science and technology?

And that's not the thrust of what you were referring to in your original post. You were talking about the INS screening people who look like me and not letting us into America.

Why that's a bad idea is a whole different can of worms, but basically Nazism is not an efficient security policy.

You have to put in place a whole lot of Nazism to get small gains in security.

You can't assume that other foreigners are somalis. It wouldn't make sense if they were either, because why would they single out estonians and russians, but not somalis?

This is a gross error that might fly on another board, but you are totally wrong, and a racist to boot! Downvoted.

As I said, I'm no statistician. I can't do science, and I can't do statistics. But that doesn't matter with regard to what I was pointing out.

There's a very bad assumption here, which is that the "other foreigners" category contains only the 13 groups listed, and that membership in none of the others implies membership in the Somalis group.

Assuming I'm not even pretending to "do statistics" (as a science), and that I'm not even trying to be "rigorous" about it, why is that a bad assumption?

Why would it not be reasonable to assume that if a minority is not on that list, it's an insignificant one?

Why would membership in none of the others not imply membership in the Somalis group?

Again, there's no need to be rigorous here. It's actually common knowledge here in Finland that Somalis rape a lot of women, but I felt like I should point to some statistics instead of just making that claim right away. Otherwise a cold reception like this would have been guaranteed.

It's common knowledge in Sweden too, by the way. In Germany, it's the Turks, and in the Netherlands, it's Moroccans.

There are people who are aware of reality, and then there are Sheeple, and for whatever reason, the media here (and afaik, all over the countries affected by Muslim immigration) has been systematically covering up the fact that the perpetrators of lots of crimes are, in fact Somalis, and not Finns.

Whenever there's news of a gang-rape, they always say it's was a bunch of "younglings" (="nuorukaiset" in Finnish, "ungdomar" in Swedish, "youth" in English news). Without any mention of the ethnicity, the reader will just assume it was locals who did it. Actually, I'm surprised they even publish statistics like those I pointed to.

Seriously. How rare is gang-rape among Western men? It's pretty fucking rare. But there have been lots of incidents in Finland in the past years. Does it make sense to assume that Finns have suddenly gotten all gang-rapey?

In other news, there are 100 cars in the parking lot outside. There are 2 Toyotas, 3 Hondas, and 95 "other" cars. Clearly these 95 cars are Fords.

Well, if we know that those 100 cars consist of Toyotas, Hondas, and Fords, and that 2 are Toyotas and 3 are Hondas, what does that leave us with for the 95 "Others"?

You can't do this with stats and still claim to remain impartial, or correct.

Again, I never claimed to be rigorous with my stats. That's just an assumption by you.

The moment the words "probably" and "let's be generous" come out of your mouth re: statistics, your numbers have lost almost all meaning. When you're trying to justify incredibly racist views, back of the napkin calculations do not cut it.

Again, not rigorous. Besides, there was no need to be rigorous. The conclusion is very clear even with a large error margin. Even 110 to 3 is a massive difference, but as I pointed out, it's reasonable to assume that the smallest minorities don't actually count for 3 rapes each, but less.

I rarely accuse people directly on these forums. You sir, are racist. For the sake of all of us, please re-evaluate your views.

I can see how you'd reach that conclusion, especially since it was what you wanted to conclude all along. But really, Europe does have a Muslim immigration problem. There's no problem with Chinese immigrants, or Western ones, or anyone who comes in and adapts and doesn't cause trouble.

But there sure as hell is a problem with Somalis, in both Finland and Sweden. We're all brainwashed by our Western cultures in to viewing the world through rose-colored glasses, but that's not what reality is like.

There are differences between races and cultures.