Why are people pro-LGBT yet want millions of refugees to come

>>8447031
I doubt the refugees decide who gets the death sentence in their shitty countries

i dont, doesnt mean im rightwing though

>>8447047
Yet when 60%-90% approve of the death sentence.

>>8447031
Because they aren't actually pro-lgbt.
Nor are they actually pro-refugee for that matter.

They just blindly follow the current hypes, oblivious to hypocrisy, irony or outright contradictions.

Ultimately they would integrate into the more civil and accepting society but since that doesn't fucking work at all (and when it does it takes 2-3 generations), >>8447150 has the right analysis.

>>8447031
Because they're not pro-LGBT; they're just anti-civilization and see LGBT as a way to do that, although a less important way than literally importing the third-world.

>>8447188
>The left is malevolently trying to destroy civilization
Oh man, id be far right too if I believed that!

>>8447226
It is way too deliberate for Hanlon's razor to apply and I'm not far-right anyway...

>>8447031
they aren't actually pro-lgbt. they also aren't left wing as mass immigration damages workers rights and living standards for working people. this is a neoliberal thing. being pro-lgbt and pro mass immigration from third world nations are all just virtue signalling from wealthy neolibs because accusations of racism or prejudice lose money and damage personal brands. its easy to have high ideals when you're wealthy and protected, which lgbts often aren't. if you're poor and gay, social ills and things that damage the less well off hit you first. politicians, celebs, cultural icons and corporate entities won't give three fifths of a half eaten shit about you, just keep buying their stuff or voting for them, idiorts

>>8447248
>they also aren't left wing
Yet it's always the leftists who are for it. How about that!

#NoTrueLeftism

they aren't pro lgbt
it's like saying you are pro black rights while being kkk

>>8447231
Sorry. I always forget conspiracy theorists can be moderates.

>>8447268
champagne socialists. if you're white, protected and live in a suburb and your parents are rich and supportive, its easy to be pro immigration. it doesn't effect you. champagne socialism is socialism without doing the work because thats for the poors to do. sheltered neoliberals playing at empathy and adopting 'noble' causes. like Dems and gay marriage, all were against, public opinion changes, votes count on it, so they support. its hollow. its the epitome of virtue signalling. your liberals are not leftists. all those scanger cunt protesters saying about open borders, refugees welcome? they have rich mommys and daddys and 10 years after college they'll have settled into corporate jobs as managers for social media and marketing. its all image and virtue signalling. pardon my cynicism, my fascist friend, but we need to slow down mass immigration, unionize, have anti-discrimination legislation to protect the gays and trannies, universal healthcare, and work hard together to drive this country forwards.

>>8447297
I'm not a moderate and I'm not the conspiracy theorist when you're the one claiming there is some motive other than the obvious for destroying the West.

>>8447031
well living in any fundamentalist country is horrible! and so clearly the humane thing to do is help people escape.

>>8447248
I'm pro open borders and pro lgbt how about them apples bitch.

>>8447047
it's literally the law. it's like you are saying the laws of a nation never reflect the beliefs of their people.

>>8447532
I'm pro LGBT and want LGBT people murdered too! What's that anon talking about when there are loads of people like us?

There is a lot that could be said in answer to your question. One thing I would say however is that liberals who preach conformity to their version of morality should justify their position rather than merely trying demonising their opponents with their weak ad hominim attacks - like religious fundamentalist so. If you do not offer a justification for your position other than: "we're in the 21st century", "you're a racist", "you're a Islamophobe", and other rhetoric of this ilk than there is absolutely no need to take their assertions seriously.

>>8447309
>I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I just believe liberals are working together to destroy civilization for reasons
Wew.

Because I don't want people to get executed for being gay? Duh? Your post is an argument FOR refugees, not against. If we held people responsible for the laws in their countries then we'd never get refugees at all. They are FLEEING oppression to go TO the West.

>>8447562
>it's like you are saying the laws of a nation never reflect the beliefs of their people.

kek, except thats actually true. some laws are enforced to the disagreement of the population but people just take it on the chin and accept it because they know they cant do anything to change it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/republicans-muslim-vote-george-w-bush-donald-trump/419481/
>Conservative Muslims are naturally socially conservative
>but the Republicans don't want them after the Bush years so they ally with democrats out of necessity
>have to moderate their views on LGBT rights in order to get political access
Really makes you think

>>8447669
So you are telling me that Muslim majority countries are not inherently anti-homosexual?

>muh millions of refugees

What are you, European? Because here in the US, we have this amazing thing called vetting, which helps to ensure we're letting in people who actually are trying to start a new life. Even countries with open border policies aren't just letting in refugees in by the million. You people might get someone to listen to you if you didn't exaggerate your arguing points.

What about LGBT refugees? Are you going to turn them away too?

>>8447576
>want LGBT people murdered too
That's sad anon! I should convince you of open borders one day though, up for coffee?

>>8447031
Because leftists are stupid.

>>8447226
It's not malevolence. It's mostly stupidity. But what's commonly classified as leftist for one reason or another is usually destructivist at its core. The primary function of actions taken is to destroy something be it a social order or an institution. Leftism of this sort always begins will a rallying cry to destroy. And when the target has been destroyed a new one quickly takes its place. Read Mises.

>>8448092
>I should convince you of open borders
That's what I was referring to.

>>8448133
You seem confused, but that's ok it's a normal reaction to new ideas, so again coffee?

>>8447268
left and right don't mean anything.

>>8448141
Just because the connotations are nebulous doesn't mean they don't exist.

>>8448140
You seem illiterate, but that's normal from homophobic fascists.

I'm a liberal though, so no thanks.

>>8448144
They're worthless as descriptive categories because any actual nuanced discussion of political philosophy will be to detailed to afford their retention. Left and right are meme terms with no value whatsoever in actual discussion. They only serve to confuse issues as people struggle to fit things on one side or the other and construct their identities and allignments based on the fuzzy bounds of their side and the other. Left and right must be expunged from everyone's political vocabulary before we cam begin to have meaningful discussions.

>>8448151
protip: if you want a larger governemt then you aren't liberal.

>>8448151
While we're discussing open borders I should also teach you about liberalism. :)
Why are you so aggressive I wonder, is it insecurity over ideals? Curious.

>>8448176
Political science uses the phrases all the time. Just because normies can't separate them from good and bad values in their heads doesn't mean they have no value in academic discourse.

People are like that with anything. It's just our innate tendency toward tribalism. Getting rid of those words would just create new ones.

Open borders were a mistake.

>>8448183
Protip: I don't.

>>8447031
>Why are people pro-LGBT yet want millions of refugees to come from countries where being gay is a death sentence.
Because if they actually liked what was going on in those countries, they would be willing to stay there?

>>8447562
The people of such-and-such nation aren't some kind of uniform hive-mind entity. People aren't likely to become refugees if they support the ruling class in their countries of origin.

>>8447576
Closed borders won't stop violence against innocents. All they'll do is let people label those acts of violence as "somebody else's problem". If anything, encouraging both the violent people and their victims to move to a country where such violent acts are condemned and harshly punished would be an improvement - the best outcome of course would be to let the victims come to our country and send the violent oppressors off to an island somewhere where they have nobody to violently oppress but each other.

>>8447031
Because they believe that they can assimilate, which it seems they do to some extent.

File: this.jpg (2KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 125x125px

>>8447248

desu we should just exterminate them all.
I don't care if there are "innocent people", unless they have valuable skills or something,they're useless, we are too many on earth anyway and there's no place for their problems in our country.
Sorry if I sound cruel, but that's the truth. That and mudslimes are already invading europe

>>8448369
>>Why are people pro-LGBT yet want millions of refugees to come from countries where being gay is a death sentence.
>Because if they actually liked what was going on in those countries, they would be willing to stay there?
There are many reasons to leave these countries besides LGBT oppression, like war, genocide, poverty, political oppression...
Only a small portion of the people who leave leave because they don't like anti-LGBT. A lot of the people leave for one reason, but like many of the things about their country.

>Closed borders won't stop violence against innocents. All they'll do is let people label those acts of violence as "somebody else's problem". If anything, encouraging both the violent people and their victims to move to a country where such violent acts are condemned and harshly punished would be an improvement - the best outcome of course would be to let the victims come to our country and send the violent oppressors off to an island somewhere where they have nobody to violently oppress but each other.
Open borders makes everyone unsafe, rather than just the people in the shithole countries. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to be oppressed. You do not have an obligation to give up your rights because less privileged people don't have those rights.
The west does not have the ability to improve conditions in the rest of the world, what open borders does is it brings those conditions to the rest of the world too. Open borders represent a steady stream of oppressors, making western countries permanently unsafe, even if the people who arrive are brought to better thoughts eventually. There will still be a steady stream of oppressors. Bringing oppressors to western countries does not end oppression in shitholes. Unless you plan to bring literally everyone, in which case, just reintroduce colonialism and western rule over the rest of the world. The only way to end oppression worldwide is cultural genocide and global western supremacy.

>>8447161
2nd generation (muslim) immigrants are more extreme than their parents

>>8449111
>You do not have an obligation to give up your rights because less privileged people don't have those rights.
I'm not asking that ANYONE give up their rights. I'm saying that the rights which "privileged" people currently have should be extended to everyone.

>Bringing oppressors to western countries does not end oppression in shitholes.
It leads to a net reduction of oppression, by placing oppressors in a position where they will be punished rather than encouraged.

>Unless you plan to bring literally everyone, in which case, just reintroduce colonialism and western rule over the rest of the world.
What you're describing sounds like an inherently oppressive arrangement, since it would entail one group ruling over another and depriving them of equal rights. That isn't necessary, all that's needed is a global agreement to follow basic principles of rule of law. As in the American system, the intent would be that constitutional principles, not people, rule over the nation.

>The only way to end oppression worldwide is cultural genocide and global western supremacy.
I don't think full-on cultural genocide is necessary, if by that you mean stuff like indoctrination, forced migration and intermarriage, etc. I mean many of those things are themselves oppressive, as they involve limiting people's freedom of expression, and so on. People can and should be free to participate in their culture however they want, so long as they don't violate other people's freedoms in doing so. Laws like "you don't get to murder people just because they worship a different god" can be instituted without requiring everyone to be part of a single homogeneous uniform culture.

>>8449103
Start by exterminating yourself.
You sound useless af.

>>8447302
>if you're white...
Literally what's the point of adding this? Leftists always lose me by adding white onto everything they criticize. How is the race of someone relevant in regards to not having to deal with immigrants personally?

>>8448020
>even countries with open border policies aren't letting in refugees by the millions
Germany

>>8449112
In a lot of cases yeah, as I said at BEST (in general) integration only really happens 2/3rd gen. That's a long fucking time though to deal with cultures that clash.
The entire purpose of centralized governments is so that this is planned for. Nothing is out of control and when [x] group is added, it's done in a slow and methodological process so that unnecessary casualties/problems don't arise.
When massive problems happen, the refugee problem should be spread as thinly as possible so that the communities that have to deal with the upcoming integrations are adequately processed.

But of course, governments (and the humans that run them) are flawed as fuck.

>>8449389
500k is not millions.

>>8449359
>Leftists
kek

>>8449359
wealth, protectionism and whiteness go hand in hand. whiteness isn't bad, it isn't wrong. but for the privileged its an extra layer of protection. money is more important than race when it comes to what you face in society, but lets not be complete diaper wearing retards here. suburbs are usually white and middle class. you don't have to face any downsides of mass immigration there, you get exotic food and maybe some more doctors. yay. poor whites, working class whites, they suffer most from mass immigration, which is why people vote against their own interests (which would be socialist) for more conservative parties that promise immigration limits. unfortunately these things never happen because corporations love mass immigration. it keeps labor cheap. not factoring race into politics is dumb. you dumb.

>>8449284
>I'm not asking that ANYONE give up their rights. I'm saying that the rights which "privileged" people currently have should be extended to everyone.
You can't do that by allowing free migration. If we had a screening, where only people who agreed to ideals of non-oppression were allowed to be saved, I could be more open to it. But I do not want to bring more oppressors to my country. I don't want immigration that makes my country worse.

>It leads to a net reduction of oppression, by placing oppressors in a position where they will be punished rather than encouraged.
But you are not targeting oppressors and removing them from the oppressed. You have a portion of the population move, consisting both of oppressors and oppressed. The people that remain will still consist of a great number of oppressors, and they will still teach their children to be oppressors. MAYBE there could be a gain if physically removing people from their countries lead to lower population with that culture overall, meaning no new population to replace them, but I don't know if that works. And to be honest, having a good life in my country is more important than the lives of people from different cultures.
>What you're describing sounds like an inherently oppressive arrangement, since it would entail one group ruling over another and depriving them of equal rights. That isn't necessary, all that's needed is a global agreement to follow basic principles of rule of law. As in the American system, the intent would be that constitutional principles, not people, rule over the nation.
The constitution is a joke. People read that however they want, and the arguments are always considered valid. And you could never enforce a global agreement to equal rights. The only way to enforce that in Middle East would be with western rule. The people there don't want it, and the rulers don't want it. Not all people want equality, many enjoy oppression. Self rule or equality, pick one.

>>8449284
>>8449500
>I don't think full-on cultural genocide is necessary, if by that you mean stuff like indoctrination, forced migration and intermarriage, etc. I mean many of those things are themselves oppressive, as they involve limiting people's freedom of expression, and so on. People can and should be free to participate in their culture however they want, so long as they don't violate other people's freedoms in doing so. Laws like "you don't get to murder people just because they worship a different god" can be instituted without requiring everyone to be part of a single homogeneous uniform culture.
A total cultural genocide may not be necessary, but at least taking control of their culture and redesigning it. But when people want oppression, oppression won't end unless people are forced to change. The west needs to change their culture to support equality, and they need to be ruled over. When people want to murder people of different religions, they won't make laws that forbid it.
Should mention that I do not identify as LGBT, and my views do not reflect those groups or the community.

>>8449413
Circular logic is your strong suit sweetie.

>>8449413
>voting against what you suffer the most from = voting against your own interests
???

Note that women are the most leftist/pro-immigration and also the most privileged and last to suffer from anything harmful to society.

>>8449609
>last to suffer

tell that to the women who got raped new years eve in germany

>>8449648
They're still the last to suffer and the first to be cared for. How many men/boys were raped in germany no one gave a fuck about because they didn't have vagina? Thought so.

>>8449658
>How many men/boys were raped in germany

I'm gonna say None?
But I'm sure you've got a link to some christian website that proves that hundreds of thousands of men and boys were raped by muslims in germany.

>>8449658
Two trans women were stoned by rapefugees in Germany.

>>8449706
>I'm gonna say None?
You can't be fucking serious. And no, why would I link to a christian website for stats? The fuck bitch you're reading this entire situation wrong.

>>8449707
Of course.

>>8449707
>trans women smoking bowls

wtf i love rapefugees now!

>>8449648
Who cries when a leftist chick who campaigns for open borders and volunteers at a refugee hostel ends up getting raped by one?

>>8449747
>>8449747
you can't rape the willing

>>8449609
right wing parties don't curb immigration because that would be anti-business so all they do is posture and stir up anti-immigrant sentiment. so voting for right wingers in the vain hope they stop rapefugees is pointless. you vote for controlled borders, pathways to citizenship for skilled immigrants, social programs and school funding that benefit not just you and yours, but rehabilitate and integrate the Rakims that are already here. the right wing and virtue signalling libs don't care what Rakim does really, they just want him to work and consume. if he rapes, he rapes. libs and conservatives love mass immigration. they don't care about rape. its all about cheap labor and buying shit. closed borders, social programs, integration, deporting all foreign criminals and cutting foreign aid (and reinvesting it at home) are good socialist things to do.

>>8449500
>You can't do that by allowing free migration. If we had a screening, where only people who agreed to ideals of non-oppression were allowed to be saved, I could be more open to it. But I do not want to bring more oppressors to my country. I don't want immigration that makes my country worse.
I don't see why "free migration" would mean we can't punish immigrants for violating our laws.

>But you are not targeting oppressors and removing them from the oppressed. You have a portion of the population move, consisting both of oppressors and oppressed. The people that remain will still consist of a great number of oppressors, and they will still teach their children to be oppressors. MAYBE there could be a gain if physically removing people from their countries lead to lower population with that culture overall, meaning no new population to replace them, but I don't know if that works. And to be honest, having a good life in my country is more important than the lives of people from different cultures.
As I said before, the best solution would be to punish oppressors, not just give them a clean slate when they enter a new country. But, if the number of oppressors and victims don't change, then there will still be SOME improvement from being moved into a country where oppressive behavior is punished.

>>8449546
I'm saying we should try to find a middle ground. There's basically two schools of though on culture: one says that a certain set of cultural values is absolutely objectively right, and that everyone should follow them, while the other says that all cultural values are "correct" for their own cultures, and that one culture cannot meaningfully criticize another culture for being "wrong". I'm saying that, since interaction between cultures is inevitable, SOME common ground needs to be found, and I'm proposing that something like "don't oppress people, don't impose on others without their consent" would be a reasonable starting point.

File: 19225859_1219665681475792_7237478059190871269_n.jpg (44KB, 620x450px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 620x450px

>>8447031