Clips

You end up with this trite worldview where the only way liberalism can be interpreted is your way and therefore it needs no assistance., That because you as a liberal have justified your answer you are done. When really, the fact isnt that liberalism MEANS mass immigration, it's just that it alone doesnt provide a great argument against it once it accepts the romantic notions about human nature, the importance of equality, and the coddling mindset just a bit more than it already does.

I think your debate with Godwinson shows these weaknesses. While Godwinson was not prepared for how hard he'd have to work keeping you in track, his points are still sound. At least what I assume are his points. At the very least Think of this as Cedarwood's take on Godwinson

Why would you think incitement to violence is the only way Muslims threaten free speech? With all these hate crime laws and taboos to protect their sensitivities you should know this. But really it is the dankula argument, and it was dumb then too: "it doesnt matter because we will stop them from actually doing anything"

Just like you've stopped them this time? If you need constant vigilance then you must be getting something good out of their presence right? But what could that be?

In reality, the beed for this vigilance is itself a reason why Islam shouldnt even be in your nation. But you guys, and you did this in this debate, are ultimately scared of discriminating and cant say that. Especially since, once you do the daylight between you and altright is pretty much nil.

The hand wave you give is that you simply oppose immigration. But this is obviously just defensiveness and not sustainable going forward. Under the soft blank slatism of liberalistism, there is no long-term argument aginst immigration. You said it yourself Vee, they will stay and assimilate. Under those circumstances, why not have the extra labor? It may hurt the lower classes but they are underrepresented at the ballot box and parties certainly dont cater to them as a rule. This being Sargob's argument. Needing populism, populism which so far hasnt solved anything yet, is not stable. It is a band-aid. Ultimately, the Godwibson position on this is correct, so why not include it? At least then we arent depending on society holding to your implicit view of things forever, which seems to be the assumption, that because you as a liberal can argueagainst mass immigration that the deed is done

And we know all this will happen, because it has. But ai guess the West wasnt loberalisting enough. Even if that too presents a problem if you cant even convince white people

Oh and the places that have fought islamism do more of what Godwinson described. One such example, beloved by Liberals is Atatirk. Who was not liberal at all. You can say he made his society more loberal, but he was not. He lacked thebnecessary faith in human goodnes and reason.
Which is funny isnt it, how often do truly libera men make the workd more liberal? I can think of a dictator you seem to enjoy, long with ancaps and the altright. And isnt his example the point of everything here? It is the very basis for the Hoppean Libertarianism from which the altright is in large part derived. Ie that libery requires something around it to prop it up and make it last, and conversely other things can kill it prematurely