/int/ - International

>>31749 >>31760 Fuck off back to Kohl. I don't even want to point out the logical fallacies in your conspiracy theory, just piss off.

>>31762 You fuck off.

>noooo it CAN'T POSSIBLY BE that a good sandperson intervened, it MUST be a conspiracy I don't understand this line of thinking.

>>31772 It's kohlbrained thinking Whatever it is, blame jews, cia, george soros etc

>>31772 Any evidence that doesn't fit the conspiracy theory is considered fabricated by the bad guys and thus further proof of the conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory reasoning classic tbh

>>31778 Also anyone one who doubts the conspiracy, makes arguments etc, is working for the bad guys, and is definitive proof for the existence of the conspiracy.

>>31760 Out of dozens of islamist massacres, the odds that one would see a middle-easterner intervening against the attackers aren't so low to warrant suspicion. Especially since middle-easterners are likely to live around other middle-easterners, who may even assume in the heat of the moment they or their loved ones are a potential target as well, and thus intervene out of self-interest. If you want to discredit the spin raising Ahmed's involvement as an immigration success story, you can simply point to the fact that the sum total of having the good arab and two bad arab immigrants in the country still amounts to over a dozen dead innocents and more wounded. Paranoid conspiracies and "just asking questions" baseless theorizing only discredit yourself and whatever positions you hold.

>>31721 Could you? I would be worried about legal ramifications.

Updates. The shooters were a father and son. That's good in a way as it means there wasn't an organised Jihadist network. 15 are dead now including a 10 year old girl. Dezi Freeman wasn't involved.

>>31772 I'd be more inclined to take his side were he in his own country or at least another muslim country. I'm not concerned with being le tolerant as if we were in 2010. And kohl isn't the only place where people feel that way by any stretch of the imagination, although if someone's used to ernst I can see why they might delude themselves into thinking so.

>>31749 It must be fun living in your own world like this.

>>31639 >terrorist attack happened in Sydney I dunno, looks like white American trash acting like white American trash to me, getting two thumbs up by the White House.

>>31881 ???

>Shooter literally looks like Homer Simpson Never change America.

It takes like 1-3 psychos to do stuff like this which is why the topic is so prone to hysteria and simplified solutions

>>31895 Shut up idiot.

you survive the Nazi machine of death, move to another part of the world, and still get killed by some crazies

>>31900 random schizos can kill the most guarded man of earth, US presidents and ceos. fat women have to accept any one can be killed, like they accept driving with people that can just crash into you

>>31960 True. We should all give up and be like the US and Liberia.

>>31962 in the US people mostly buy guns to shoot just themselves

>>31845 The greatest cancer of the past decade is that both sides of the political divide have become obsessed with id politics. It's all so juvenile and naive. It should not cross your mind as significant in any way what his name, religion, or ethnicity is. Simply a good man did something good against a bad man doing something bad.

>>31930 I read rabbits...

>>31994 A priest, a minister and a rabbit walk in to a blood donation clinic. The rabbit says "I think I might be a type 0"

>>31964 Atheism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

>>32002 I disagree

>>32002 lol religiousness is extreme idpol

>>32006 Now that's a hot take. Care to explain?

>>32009 I'll explain in the form of this joge >Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" >He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" >He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!" >Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

>>31964 >It should not cross your mind as significant in any way what his name, religion, or ethnicity is. This would only make sense when if random acts of violence and mass-casualty events were committed more-or-less equally between groups. That's not the case. You could make the case that the way people treat these events devolves into a some sort of morbid online sport, and it's very distasteful. But ignoring ethnicity and religion is every bit as ideological as extreme id-pol, just in the service of dogmatic colorblindness instead of tribalism. If a specific group of people has a disproportionate tendency to engage in violence or other bad behaviors, that's valuable information in a supposedly democratic society that is predicated on informed citizenry having a say in their governance, and thus worthy of highlighting.

>>32048 > If a specific group of people has a disproportionate tendency to engage in violence or other bad behaviors, that's valuable information so it's 90% young males. what now?

>>32048 It's easy to get into the branches from here. It's not about what's the most ideologically extreme etc. The problem with idpol is that it's used as a justification for preexisting beliefs. Both liberals and rightists use it to further their own particular hidden agenda. Regarding statistics, you can do anything with them really. It's as accurate to say that a muslim is many times more likely to commit these types of crimes as it is to say that a random muslim chosen from the population is almost impossibly unlikely to commit these types of crimes. If we're reporting one statistic but not the other then that's not forming a balanced view, it's just trying to manipulate the reader.

>>32055 Yes, males being disproportionately likely to engage in violence is also valuable information that everyone should be informed of and it should be factored in policy. Race, ethnicity, sex, and age are all relevant. This should be a very reasonable for anyone that doesn't hold one of them as their sacred cow.

>>31964 > It should not cross your mind as significant in any way what his name, religion, or ethnicity is. And thinking that way is an ideology itself, it's funny how so many people who think like that think they're paragons of neutrality, unbiased geniuses, when really they're just run of the mill cosmopolitans. The funniest subtype is, imo, the ones who read Ayn Rand and think they're above "the ideological masses" or some nonsense like that. Ingroup preference has been a thing throughout the entirety of human history, regardless of how pushed some of its modern iterations might be. I'm tempted to say westerners (and those trying to emulate westerners) are so detached from it due to material conditions detaching them from reality in general, but in reality you don't see that in other countries that do quite well materially. For example, Singapore is very rich but it's well known the Chinese people who built it up are very ethnocentric and treat the indians who have been there for a while like shit. Mainland Chinese are also ethnocentric and japs/koreans also seem to be, although to a lesser extent. It's only the west that seems to think prioritizing your own people is some original sin and that a growing economy is more important than ethnic survival (to the point they even question the existence of their own people as a thing). You are not unbiased, you are not "enlightened", you are a cosmopolitan.

>>32057 >It's as accurate to say that a muslim is many times more likely to commit these types of crimes as it is to say that a random muslim chosen from the population is almost impossibly unlikely to commit these types of crimes. Not all statistics are equally relevant. Most Muslims may not be violent, but that has little relevance to whether it's good to have them around. If 2% of people in my area commit violent crime, but 4% of Muslims do, then an influx of them objectively worsens my quality of life and that of everyone around me. Such information is objectively much more important, because it impacts my life. The fact that a random muslim chosen from the population is still unlikely to commit a crime doesn't, even if it's true. But if all you're saying is that both of these facts deserve to be emphasized, I can agree with that.

>>32048 You are correct but at the same time I can't help but notice how yet again this is an indictment of the lack of ethnocentrism in the west, something that is considered normal everywhere else. Westerners feel the need to point to economically useful metrics like violence and IQ as if there was no other way of justifying their people's existence. Throughout human history the ones who survived and thrived were precisely the ones who said fuck it to all that and prioritized their people regardless, because that kind of tribal feeling is the instinct that will always exist and make people work together, much more than some government/corporation manufacturing a bs identity based on "shared values" or some childish shit like that. In Europe itself you don't have to go that far back in time to find ethnocentrism, back when, if people were exposed to a metric like IQ, they'd say "I don't care, I prefer my own people even if they are lower IQ". But I guess the chronically depressed modern Europeans who behave like they're just waiting to die and only care about the economy are wiser than the generations that conquered the planet. But I digress, my original point was about how first worlders have become so detached from their instincts that they demonize something that was taken for granted for so long and act as if displaying just a sliver of what their ancestors once did is only justifiable if it makes GDP go up or something like that. Overall some of the posts ITT have massive ernst vibes and remind me of when some of them freaked out that some people didn't like Mr. pregnant woman robber Floyd. And in true ernst fashion I expect them to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being some type of philistine ogre. >you pig, I am enlightened and you're not!

>>32070 bernd used to be in the centre but late-KC went towards the right. /pol/ takes about everything are not very fun. I prefer the autistic analyses where there is a conclusion that ignores political correctness or political ideology

>>32090 It is naive at best to expect people's opinions to remain the same for 15 years. >centre Not really a thing, someone being a centrist doesn't mean they are unbiased, but rather that they're in the middle of whatever is the current status of the overton window. If you want to talk about serious discussions then recognizing everyone has a bias is 101 in disciplines like sociology. Thinking you can be this abstract entity whose views are not informed by any Weltanschauung is, again, naive at best. >/pol/ takes about everything are not very fun This statement could likewise be classified as naive at best, although it's too close to dishonesty for me to not go further. For starters, it's a straw man, which someone supposedly concerned with serious discussions would not resort to. That old image about logical fallacies that used to be pinned on vierkanal /pol/ comes to mind, back before the place got flooded with bots and the like. Something being discussed there at some point (or even becoming popular among its posters) does not immediately disqualify it. This is no different from teenage me saying marxists were poopy even though I didn't know enough about it to offer an actual critique. I guess at least I wasn't narcissistic enough to pretend I was this ethereal intellect hovering above the biased masses while my gigabrain was actually never biased at all. >hahah you peasants with your dumb OPINIONS! Political correctness itself isn't an isolated phenomenon, for example. You would probably benefit from reading Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals.

>>31997 Type 0 Negative

>>32013 I lik this joge.

>>32070 In-group solidarity is normal and healthy within reason. But a significant share of people in the developed world don't subscribe to it anymore. Not consciously at least, even if revealed preferences are another matter. This is a reality that has to be accepted, whether or not you think it's good or want to change it. That means adjusting how you get your point across. Saying "We have a right to exist" is a value statement. It's not convincing to anyone who doesn't already believe in it. On the other hand, pointing out how the present Anglo-European commitment to blank-slate ideology -- which treats all groups as interchangeable -- is at odds with the reality of population differences and this results in all sorts of negative consequences has potential to persuade others, because it doesn't depend on a prerequisite belief in the importance of ethnicity or race to be accepted. Once a person acknowledges that populations do differ in important ways, exclusionary attitudes suddenly make a lot more sense, even if it doesn't necessarily mean they have to follow a nationalist model -- you could just as easily use it to argue for limiting inclusion to high-performing populations like East Asians. But still, it serves to discredit a core foundation of the modern anti-nationalist consensus, so it's still helpful for bringing back ethnocentric attitudes back into the realm of social acceptability by undermining the main force behind their suppression. Above all, it's also the truth, and thus good to bring up regardless of everything else. Lies are bad; debunking them is good. Commitment to truth should always transcend political expediency, and that includes opposing lies even when they ostensibly align with one's own beliefs and worldview.

The Younger shooter was a follower of a radical Islamic preacher. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-12-16/video-shows-bondi-beach-shooting-gunman-preaching-islam-to-teens/106145626 Also Ahmed is from Syria.

>>32102 not this bernd howeverthough I believe that what he meant by center is not that they were actual centrists but that the average distribution of political compass was more in the middle

>>32255 I think most people are actually centralists, it's just people like him that live in a permanent internet war so they don't see what's actually normal.

>>32256 yes, IMO there is a certain distance to the topic of politics irl that just doesn't exist on the internet, and those who subscribe ideologically to certain political values, I find observing them and catagolizing their characteristics and common behavioral traits based on the ideology they subscribe to. I dont know. I think I like politics more on the internet, they are less personal and more focused on the actual ideas, but then again it turns out into too much immaterial thought wanking. What can we say about this bernd? >>32102 >Above all, it's also the truth, and thus good to bring up regardless of everything else. Lies are bad; debunking them is good. Commitment to truth should always transcend political expediency, and that includes opposing lies even when they ostensibly align with one's own beliefs and worldview. He's sure of himself, he doesn't doubt his views. He's not a relativist. To me, it's clear as a day that I am a product of a chance. Everything that consolidates into what I think is a product of a random seed generator, starting with my biology to my upbringing to the experiences of my life and how I reacted to them, which in turn shaped my understanding of things such as justice, what is ethically right and what is wrong. I could never articulate about any other topic that the fact that I just can't know for a certain, with such a manner of sureness in my opinion. Yet reality is, and there are decisions to be made, regardless if you are the know for a fact type or not. >>32102 >This is no different from teenage me saying marxists were poopy even though I didn't know enough about it to offer an actual critique. I guess at least I wasn't narcissistic enough to pretend I was this ethereal intellect hovering above the biased masses while my gigabrain was actually never biased at all. That's like really interesting to me, because when I was a teenage marxist it came from the very aluring concept of justice for a common man, rather than any sense of superiority or unbiasedness so to speak.

>>32259 fuck i should maybe read it once before posting, well, if you're not 89iq you surely will understand my point

>>32260 >I can write ramblings if you’re not dumb you’ll understand Nietzsche is that you?

>>32259 >I am merely the result of a random seed generator Sorry if this comes off as rude but to me that is just cowardice masking as virtue, "things are random and outside my control" is just another way of avoiding the responsibility of having opinions. >thought marxism was justice for the common man It's possible that we simply have different minds on a very fundamental level. Even back when I was first exposed to marxism I said it was bullshit because power would still be concentrated on the hands of whoever made things work, were it a bureaucracy, statesman, aristocracy or whatever. I believe I was 12 or 13 when I was first exposed to marxism and at the time I also saw parallels between it and christianity: I grew up attending a private catholic school and I'd get into trouble for openly disagreeing with certain lessons. When I was 10 I was grounded by a religion teacher because I said a parable we were taught (that rich people are evil and exploitative and vice-versa) was ridiculous and the world was more complicated than that. No wonder I remembered that when I was exposed to marxism later.

>>32255 I actually meant literally the centre in that pic. Meaning instead of trying to argue some central meta-point by some proxy argument, I like the direct autistic answers to issues. Kind of like how rms completely ignores the real argument and just answers the question https://www.stallman.org/articles/genderless-pronouns.html

>>32317 Based 12 year old huehue BTFOs Marxists.

>>32259 Innate population differences are either real or aren't. It's not a matter of philosophical debate or worldview, which are shaped by personal experiences and cultural context, anymore than the question of heliocentrism vs geocentrism is. Either you think Kalahari Bushmen can functionally becomes Swedes or not. If you think they can, or the evidence is too unclear either way, you can say so. But the "we're all products of our circumstance" spiel is a deflection that doesn't even make sense to bring up in response to the topic at hand. You can actually know things, draw conclusions, and make assertions with a very high degree of confidence! And you can even do it while also being self-conscious of your own capacity for bias, making mistakes, and motivated reasoning. It's possible!