How do we stop the regressive left and return liberals to th

>>6612117
You do realise they haven't quizzed every British muslim? The fact it's a 2% majority could be a complete anomaly, but even so, these "British muslims" are going to have to fucking put up with it aren't they? I bet a majority of conservative voters think transgenders being allowed in their identified gender's bathroom should be illegal too, but what the fuck can you do? Eradicate conservative voters? No, you have to live and let live.

>>6612133
>how do polls works??

Also.

Ayy lmao that faggot Milo is going to die in 3 days.

>>6612133
>what is random sampling

>You do realise they haven't quizzed every British muslim?

You do realize that's not how polls work?

>these "British muslims" are going to have to fucking put up with it aren't they?

Not if we let regressive liberals keep apologizing for them and throwing us under the bus. When their culture puts us into closets at best, and under a bloody pile of rocks at worst, that's when you say fuck them and their culture.


>I bet a majority of conservative voters think transgenders being allowed in their identified gender's bathroom should be illegal too, but what the fuck can you do? Eradicate conservative voters? No, you have to live and let live.

You tell them to go fuck themselves and their bigotry is incompatible with a rational society. There is no logical basis for barred bathrooms. The religious right has a friend in extremist Muslims. Do you want to be stoned by a Muslim or incarcerated by a Christian?

File: Anarchist_flag.svg.png (8KB, 1280x853px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 1280x853px

>liberals
REVOLUTION W H E N

>>6612155
>>6612145

Random sampling a portion of a community isn't getting an accurate consensus, especially when there's so many variables that have to be accounted for, like which country the emigrated from, their family values, which part of the UK they're living in, as I imagine muslims living in Camden are far more accepting than those living in other parts. I haven't read the article so I haven't checked to see if these are accounted for, but if they're not, then these results aren't accurate

>>6612173
I sympathize with the libertarian leftists but I like my public roads and schools and welfare. We need a government that isn't trying to destroy itself. Bernie would've won if he got the nomination. Fuck. He had such a lead over Trump compared to Clinton.

>>6612184
>Random sampling a portion of a community isn't getting an accurate consensus,

Yes it does. That's literally what a poll is. What you're worried about is what's called the margin of error.

>>6612184
You really need to learn a little about statistics.

>>6612190
Which is potentially a large one without the variables being taken into account. Eitherways, not getting bogged down in the formalities, basically I don't see a way in which you could stop "regressive" muslims rather than letting them adjust to native customs, kicking them out back into their homeland which adopts their principles by law is going to do no good, is it?

>>6612133
>Eradicate conservative voters?
No, eradicate religion.

>>6612117
>52% of British Muslims in poll think homosexuality should be illegal
>52%

If it's enough to pull the country out of the EU and send it into economic collapse it should be enough to outlaw homosexuality.

>>6612428
Not 52% of the British population, 52% of British Muslims, who are a minority of 5%.

>>6612184
For fucks sake take a statistics class you're worse than /pol/

Why is everyone who refers to a "regressive left" a massive fucking pillock?

>>6612117
>How do we stop the regressive left and return liberals to the classical variety?
"Classical liberals" are basically libertarians, which means they want minimal government intervention - so they'd have no problem with countries like Britain being full of Muslims. They would of course take issue with the individual Muslims (as well as people of any other demographic group) that go around raping and killing people, but that's illegal anyways even in countries ruled by the "regressive left". I really can't see how switching to a classical liberal/libertarian government would really help LGBT, as we'd still have just as many Muslims and LGBT would no longer be considered a protected class.

>>6612133
One would expect the poll to be representative of the British Muslim population, unless whoever did it had an agenda and tried specifically to distort the data (i.e. only polling British Muslims that meet certain criteria, to ensure the more extreme ones are over-represented, etc). Another concern with voluntary polls is that you only get responses from those who are inclined to respond. But usually, you'd expect a poll to be more or less representative. Even if the real percentage of British Muslims who want to ban gay marriage is just 45%, that's still pretty bad.

>return liberals to the classical variety?

The state discriminating against its citizens or even immigrants based on their religion would be completely antithetical to libertarianism.

>52% of British Muslims in poll think homosexuality should be illegal

And how many total Muslims are living in the U.K.?

Your problem sounds like a legislative one, not an issue of public opinion. I have no idea how politics operate in the U.K., but you should have a constitution that guarantees its citizens fundamental rights, not have the general public assemble and use an act of direct democracy to vote away the rights of social groups it hates. Does this ever happen? Well, then you've got bigger fish to fry than immigration policies.

>>6613326
Classical liberalism scares away immigrants that don't believe in the values. Either that or they emigrate anyway and quickly find themselves committing crimes and getting imprisoned due to to their actions.
Neoliberalism largely protects their behaviour by taking into account cultural indifferences and judges people on a differing scales based on their life history. Liberalism in its true form does not care about you're past and it is based on personal decisions. You made the choice to emigrate, you follow the countries liberal rules.

>>6613359
>Liberalism in its true form does not care about you're past and it is based on personal decisions. You made the choice to emigrate, you follow the countries liberal rules.
And under true liberalism, who makes the rules? If Muslims did become a majority, what would stop them from voting for laws based on Islamic principles?

>>6613389
Muslims aren't liberal for the most part. There is no example of a liberal muslin country so you're just spewing shit

>>6613464
Also liberalism deters immigrants. Canada is probably the closest you can get to classical liberalism thanks to our patented pseudo-homosexual prime minister and when they introduced the 25k Syrian limit restricted to families and lgbt people they only voluntarily had about 3000 people subscribe
Plus we are now correcting our demographics via child care support which boosts birth rates encouraging white people to have births for once in our fucking lifetime. So the little trust fund kid actually did in fact help our country in a massive way and his actions will ensure there's no demographic shift for probably 2-3 generations. It's almost like you go to school to learn about classical liberalism and then do those things, wow

>>6613389
>what would stop them from voting for laws based on Islamic principles?

A constitution, which any country that isn't a decaying shithole should have. The U.S. constitution even clearly states that Congress shall pass no law respecting any religious institution, which is why - despite the country's population consisting of a Christian majority - our federal laws are not based on Christian morality. Now, state laws are unfortunately a different matter. State lawmakers seem to believe they can get away with whatever shit they want, so you see plenty of religious laws in the South. Those usually get struck down at a later time though.

Anyway, I think you misunderstand the reach of democracy. No country, to my knowledge, is a direct democracy. It simply doesn't matter what a majority of a population thinks, provided there's a sensible constitution in place to safeguard the rights of citizens.

>>6613464
That's not what I said. I didn't say that any existing Muslim-majority countries are liberal. What I did say was that if Muslims became the majority in a liberal country, they could institute laws that make it effectively an Islamic theocracy, despite being democratic.

File: 1468785019456.png (1MB, 870x783px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 870x783px

I can't believe that after Orlando the lgbt would still cower before Muslims. They want us all dead and you're begging to be killed by them so people won't think you're racist? Unforgivable.

>>6614354
It would be fairly unlikely to ever occur within at least the next 5-10 generations
Even turkey which Iis something like 98% muslim maintained secularism for close to a hundred years
Realistically speaking the idea that we would reach the same point as turkey is quite low considering you're beginning at 0.5% of the population and even with their high birth rate you wouldn't be guaranteed their kids follow the religion.
Personally Im not a fan of any religion but they have every right to believe in whatever the hell they want lol
I don't agree with them blaming others for social stigma though, they made a personal choice in their religion and they have to deal with the consequences of it.

>>6612117
They must have polled super liberal Muslims. i would expect this number to be closer to 95%.

>>6614399
Blaming the entire Muslim community isn't a solution though. And calling out the idiots who think such blame is the solution is in no way "cowering before Muslims" or "begging to be killed by them". While Islamic cultures are usually very homophobic and regressive compared to the liberal west, pretty much all the actual acts of Islamic terrorism are carried out by ISIS or other extremist terrorist organizations. Ordinary Muslims may not like gays, but for the most part they don't go on killing sprees because of it. Even the Orlando shooter's father, who was much more religious than the shooter himself was, didn't think it was his job to go around killing gays. He believed that being gay was wrong, but that there was no need for humans to do anything about it because god would punish them. If it wasn't for ISIS, it might make sense to focus our efforts on criticizing Islam, and the isolated non-terrorist violence it leads to. But with ISIS, we have a much bigger problem to face, and while we shouldn't pretend Islam is in any way progressive and liberal, we need to realize that ISIS is far more dangerous than just some random Muslim homophobes/criminals. ISIS sees most Muslims as its enemy, just as it sees whit Westerners, and it is to ISIS' benefit if the West becomes distrustful of Muslims in general, that actually benefits ISIS, since internal conflict weakens the West. ISIS actually wants both Muslims and whites in the West to become radicalized, even if neither group pledges allegiance to ISIS. Having white nationalists and armed Muslim groups going around killing each other in the West will weaken us just as much as ISIS attacks themselves are doing. Until ISIS is defeated, we need to remember that ISIS is the common enemy. Despite being homophobic and backwards, in the grand scheme of things most Muslims are ultimately on our side. We cannot afford to let our society be weakened by hate and needless blame at a time when ISIS is trying to destroy it.

>>6614727
You'd expect that for Muslims coming from a place like the middle east, however some of the British Muslims may have largely become secularized, and even if not may just not consider the matter of homosexuality to be a high priority. Islam's issues with homosexuality are really more of a cultural, than religious thing - the quran doesn't seem to be much more homophobic than the bible does, but the Muslim world is centered on very traditional cultures, while Christianity nowadays is centered on secular, liberal cultures. People generally only pay attention to the aspects of a religion that resonate with their cultural beliefs.

I don't know. As a minority I never cared for identity politics so I don't know why it appeals to people aside from perhaps some shitty way to feel like youre included in something important

File: image.jpg (74KB, 547x363px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 547x363px

Stop making national identity nebulous

>>6615096
"Identity politics" really just means supporting policies that are likely beneficial to demographic groups you're part of. I mean, there are gay people that don't care about gay rights, or are even opposed to them, but for the most part gays would be expected to offer more support to a candidate who wants to make/keep gay marriage legal, all other things being equal.

>>6615110
National identity is inherently nebulous. Even without immigration, it would change. Most people in the 1920s would think it's wrong to allow gay marriage and sex changes, but today we consider Muslims backwards and regressive for having the same attitude.

>>6615112
No it's also ascribing value to someone's words or actions based on their identity which is in this case something like race or gender

It's bordering on bigotry

>>6615134
of course we ascribe value to people based on their identity when it comes to their words and actions. Do we not lock up murders? Is that bigotry?

We also already profile. The only difference between profiling everyone and not strictly the people more likely to be dangerous is political correctness. We don't want to offend so we instead let sacrifice our safety. Politically correct liberals are handing Trump the keys.