|
|
User was warned for this post: please don't put Mein Kampf and the Qu'ran in the same category
Why not?
Because one ideology is still popular today and the other one isn't?
|
|
TLADT24920 Posts
I'm surprised that SixStrings is still around. The guy has terrible mod history and posts inflammatory content regarding Islam every chance he gets. Mods ban reason is very legit imo.
|
Should be banned for ignorance and stupidity, political correctness doesnt even have to come into it
|
your Country52797 Posts
He's asking why books that are aimed towards or against a group of people in an undesirable way are allowed when the same kind of symbols aren't. By comparing the Qu'ran to Mein Kampf, he's putting both in a very negative context and basically saying that Islams are literally like hitler.
|
some Arabs found common cause with Nazi Germany against colonial regimes in the region. The influence of the Nazis in the Arab world grew though the 1930s.
It seems apparent that this has more to do with resisting colonial oppression, than finding common cause with Nazi ideology. Also, putting the Koran and Mein Kampf in the same category is ridiculous, and obvious bait. They're just not comparable, and unless you're also comfortable putting the Bible next to Mein Kampf, it's hypocritical (and comparing Mein Kampf with the Bible would also, of course, be ridiculous)
|
Expectedly, the irony is lost on everyone who has replied. He just made two examples, he did not even compare one against the other and literaly made no comments on their similarity. If I say that humans and butterflies are an example of living creatures, am I saying that humans are basically the same as butterflies? He just made examples of two things that he would not allow while allowing some other thing and presumably if he used any one of those, it would have been "correct".
The warning is obviously triggered by the unthinkability of seeing "Quran" and "Main Kampf" so uncomfortably next to each other, and that feeling has obviously arisen from PC. If this were any other two things, that are just vaguely related, not one that has "religion" and other that has "Hitler" on it, noone would blink an eye, but this merely putting these two in one sentence is politically incorrect enough to warrant a warning - in a thread about how stupid PC is.
There is really nothing to discuss and no excuses to be made, since the warning was spelled out, so there is no room for creative interpretation. The rest of the guy's posting is irrelevant to the matter. "He should be banned for ignorance and stupidity" is just a way to veil the requirement of PC to other words, so that it does not seem so obvious.
Anyway, the paradox is the same as always: why does TL even allow threads on a topic (PC, in this case) when the stance on that topic is already mandated by the moderation? Where is the room for a discussion, when it has been already decided, what is right?
|
|
political correctness and not acting like xenophobic fuck are 2 different things
|
On July 01 2015 03:11 opisska wrote: Expectedly, the irony is lost on everyone who has replied. He just made two examples, he did not even compare one against the other and literaly made no comments on their similarity. If I say that humans and butterflies are an example of living creatures, am I saying that humans are basically the same as butterflies? He just made examples of two things that he would not allow while allowing some other thing and presumably if he used any one of those, it would have been "correct".
The warning is obviously triggered by the unthinkability of seeing "Quran" and "Main Kampf" so uncomfortably next to each other, and that feeling has obviously arisen from PC. If this were any other two things, that are just vaguely related, not one that has "religion" and other that has "Hitler" on it, noone would blink an eye, but this merely putting these two in one sentence is politically incorrect enough to warrant a warning - in a thread about how stupid PC is.
There is really nothing to discuss and no excuses to be made, since the warning was spelled out, so there is no room for creative interpretation. The rest of the guy's posting is irrelevant to the matter. "He should be banned for ignorance and stupidity" is just a way to veil the requirement of PC to other words, so that it does not seem so obvious.
Anyway, the paradox is the same as always: why does TL even allow threads on a topic (PC, in this case) when the stance on that topic is already mandated by the moderation? Where is the room for a discussion, when it has been already decided, what is right?
Yes, this was my first reaction really. My argument was once derailed and strawmanned because I used some neo-nazi analogy in a completely inoffensive way (as an example of something undesireable) and people just freaked out and missed the whole point.
On July 01 2015 02:35 marttorn wrote:Show nested quote +some Arabs found common cause with Nazi Germany against colonial regimes in the region. The influence of the Nazis in the Arab world grew though the 1930s. It seems apparent that this has more to do with resisting colonial oppression, than finding common cause with Nazi ideology. Also, putting the Koran and Mein Kampf in the same category is ridiculous, and obvious bait. They're just not comparable, and unless you're also comfortable putting the Bible next to Mein Kampf, it's hypocritical (and comparing Mein Kampf with the Bible would also, of course, be ridiculous)
Fair enough, just saying they might not be that mad, they are a certain portion of them who are anti semites too. (in my country for example.)
But yea about the rest please refer to oppsika's point above.
|
On July 01 2015 03:11 opisska wrote: Expectedly, the irony is lost on everyone who has replied. He just made two examples, he did not even compare one against the other and literaly made no comments on their similarity. If I say that humans and butterflies are an example of living creatures, am I saying that humans are basically the same as butterflies? He just made examples of two things that he would not allow while allowing some other thing and presumably if he used any one of those, it would have been "correct".
The warning is obviously triggered by the unthinkability of seeing "Quran" and "Main Kampf" so uncomfortably next to each other, and that feeling has obviously arisen from PC. If this were any other two things, that are just vaguely related, not one that has "religion" and other that has "Hitler" on it, noone would blink an eye, but this merely putting these two in one sentence is politically incorrect enough to warrant a warning - in a thread about how stupid PC is.
There is really nothing to discuss and no excuses to be made, since the warning was spelled out, so there is no room for creative interpretation. The rest of the guy's posting is irrelevant to the matter. "He should be banned for ignorance and stupidity" is just a way to veil the requirement of PC to other words, so that it does not seem so obvious.
Anyway, the paradox is the same as always: why does TL even allow threads on a topic (PC, in this case) when the stance on that topic is already mandated by the moderation? Where is the room for a discussion, when it has been already decided, what is right? Dude : do you even know about SixStrings' mod and posting history? He already grasped like every chance he ever had to push the points that the Quran is evil because the Quran explicitly incites to kill people (while according to him the Bible is free of everything of that sort), that Islam at its root is not compatible with scientific & societal progress (factually because historically false) and that all Muslims are either barbarians or terrorists (I don't think I'll even comment on this one). Once you factor this in, there's little doubt that he wasn't just putting Mein Kampf and the Quran side to side by coincidence, and what he meant becomes clear as crystal.
And even if the mods would ignore his post history (and afaik they don't ignore it), putting the Quran as an example of a book that actively incite to hate and violence is not only stupid and ignorant, but also dishonest, as it ignores 99.999% of the book. Meanwhile, Mein Kampf is a book which contains a vast majority of content pushing for hatred and violence.
Lastly, your comparison is bad because it doesn't involve a positive or negative judgment like the originally incriminated sentence. You comparison would be valid if he simply said "Mein Kampf and the Qu'ran are two examples of books.", which is factually correct.
|
On July 01 2015 03:11 opisska wrote: Expectedly, the irony is lost on everyone who has replied. He just made two examples, he did not even compare one against the other and literaly made no comments on their similarity. If I say that humans and butterflies are an example of living creatures, am I saying that humans are basically the same as butterflies? He just made examples of two things that he would not allow while allowing some other thing and presumably if he used any one of those, it would have been "correct".
The warning is obviously triggered by the unthinkability of seeing "Quran" and "Main Kampf" so uncomfortably next to each other, and that feeling has obviously arisen from PC. If this were any other two things, that are just vaguely related, not one that has "religion" and other that has "Hitler" on it, noone would blink an eye, but this merely putting these two in one sentence is politically incorrect enough to warrant a warning - in a thread about how stupid PC is.
There is really nothing to discuss and no excuses to be made, since the warning was spelled out, so there is no room for creative interpretation. The rest of the guy's posting is irrelevant to the matter. "He should be banned for ignorance and stupidity" is just a way to veil the requirement of PC to other words, so that it does not seem so obvious.
Anyway, the paradox is the same as always: why does TL even allow threads on a topic (PC, in this case) when the stance on that topic is already mandated by the moderation? Where is the room for a discussion, when it has been already decided, what is right?
"The warning is obviously triggered by the unthinkability of seeing "Quran" and "Main Kampf" so uncomfortably next to each other, and that feeling has obviously arisen from PC."
He was comparing the two, quite clearly. The idea that the warning wouldn't happen if he'd said "Butterflies and Humans are two living things", is irrelevant because that isn't a contentious notion, nor is it being discussed. The equivalent would be if he said that "the Koran and Mein Kampf are both books" (even this would actually be somewhat incorrect). He put them in the same category, and said that one was as bad as the other, which is an extremely contentious and ignorant thing to say so flippantly, without even giving due justification. It's detrimental to whatever is being discussed.
|
On July 01 2015 03:37 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:11 opisska wrote: Expectedly, the irony is lost on everyone who has replied. He just made two examples, he did not even compare one against the other and literaly made no comments on their similarity. If I say that humans and butterflies are an example of living creatures, am I saying that humans are basically the same as butterflies? He just made examples of two things that he would not allow while allowing some other thing and presumably if he used any one of those, it would have been "correct".
The warning is obviously triggered by the unthinkability of seeing "Quran" and "Main Kampf" so uncomfortably next to each other, and that feeling has obviously arisen from PC. If this were any other two things, that are just vaguely related, not one that has "religion" and other that has "Hitler" on it, noone would blink an eye, but this merely putting these two in one sentence is politically incorrect enough to warrant a warning - in a thread about how stupid PC is.
There is really nothing to discuss and no excuses to be made, since the warning was spelled out, so there is no room for creative interpretation. The rest of the guy's posting is irrelevant to the matter. "He should be banned for ignorance and stupidity" is just a way to veil the requirement of PC to other words, so that it does not seem so obvious.
Anyway, the paradox is the same as always: why does TL even allow threads on a topic (PC, in this case) when the stance on that topic is already mandated by the moderation? Where is the room for a discussion, when it has been already decided, what is right? Dude : do you even know about SixStrings' mod and posting history? He already grasped like every chance he ever had to push the points that the Quran is evil because the Quran explicitly incites to kill people (while according to him the Bible is free of everything of that sort), that Islam at its root is not compatible with scientific & societal progress (factually because historically false) and that all Muslims are either barbarians or terrorists (I don't think I'll even comment on this one). Once you factor this in, there's little doubt that he wasn't just putting Mein Kampf and the Quran side to side by coincidence, and what he meant becomes clear as crystal. And even if the mods would ignore his post history (and afaik they don't ignore it), putting the Quran as an example of a book that actively incite to hate and violence is not only stupid and ignorant, but also dishonest, as it ignores 99.999% of the book. Meanwhile, Mein Kampf is a book which contains a vast majority of content pushing for hatred and violence. Lastly, your comparison is bad because it doesn't involve a positive or negative judgment like the originally incriminated sentence. You comparison would be valid if he simply said "Mein Kampf and the Qu'ran are two examples of books.", which is factually correct.
Well, I know that you probably know that I know about SixString's moderation history, however the relevance of that was instantly destroyed by the wording of the warning. He is not warned for labelling Quran as being hateful (if he were, I would simply sigh silently and move on), he is warned for putting it alongside Mein Kampf, which screams a mindless "no, you don't do THAT, that's not riiiiiight" more than anything else.
Even though I have some opinions on the underlying discussion, I don't really want to discuss merits of religion here, the soil for that discussion on TL is drier than California. However I stand by the observation that he was essentially banned for a politically incorrect statement in a thread about political correctness, which is the pinnacle of irony, even though no bets were voided that day.
|
On July 01 2015 03:49 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:37 OtherWorld wrote:On July 01 2015 03:11 opisska wrote: Expectedly, the irony is lost on everyone who has replied. He just made two examples, he did not even compare one against the other and literaly made no comments on their similarity. If I say that humans and butterflies are an example of living creatures, am I saying that humans are basically the same as butterflies? He just made examples of two things that he would not allow while allowing some other thing and presumably if he used any one of those, it would have been "correct".
The warning is obviously triggered by the unthinkability of seeing "Quran" and "Main Kampf" so uncomfortably next to each other, and that feeling has obviously arisen from PC. If this were any other two things, that are just vaguely related, not one that has "religion" and other that has "Hitler" on it, noone would blink an eye, but this merely putting these two in one sentence is politically incorrect enough to warrant a warning - in a thread about how stupid PC is.
There is really nothing to discuss and no excuses to be made, since the warning was spelled out, so there is no room for creative interpretation. The rest of the guy's posting is irrelevant to the matter. "He should be banned for ignorance and stupidity" is just a way to veil the requirement of PC to other words, so that it does not seem so obvious.
Anyway, the paradox is the same as always: why does TL even allow threads on a topic (PC, in this case) when the stance on that topic is already mandated by the moderation? Where is the room for a discussion, when it has been already decided, what is right? Dude : do you even know about SixStrings' mod and posting history? He already grasped like every chance he ever had to push the points that the Quran is evil because the Quran explicitly incites to kill people (while according to him the Bible is free of everything of that sort), that Islam at its root is not compatible with scientific & societal progress (factually because historically false) and that all Muslims are either barbarians or terrorists (I don't think I'll even comment on this one). Once you factor this in, there's little doubt that he wasn't just putting Mein Kampf and the Quran side to side by coincidence, and what he meant becomes clear as crystal. And even if the mods would ignore his post history (and afaik they don't ignore it), putting the Quran as an example of a book that actively incite to hate and violence is not only stupid and ignorant, but also dishonest, as it ignores 99.999% of the book. Meanwhile, Mein Kampf is a book which contains a vast majority of content pushing for hatred and violence. Lastly, your comparison is bad because it doesn't involve a positive or negative judgment like the originally incriminated sentence. You comparison would be valid if he simply said "Mein Kampf and the Qu'ran are two examples of books.", which is factually correct. Well, I know that you probably know that I know about SixString's moderation history, however the relevance of that was instantly destroyed by the wording of the warning. He is not warned for labelling Quran as being hateful (if he were, I would simply sigh silently and move on), he is warned for putting it alongside Mein Kampf, which screams a mindless "no, you don't do THAT, that's not riiiiiight" more than anything else. Even though I have some opinions on the underlying discussion, I don't really want to discuss merits of religion here, the soil for that discussion on TL is drier than California. However I stand by the observation that he was essentially banned for a politically incorrect statement in a thread about political correctness, which is the pinnacle of irony, even though no bets were voided that day. What marttorn said, then. And I fail to see how the wording of the warning renders his mod/posting history irrelevant ; on the contrary, it precisely allows the mod to have no doubt about what his real intention was with his sentence.
|
For the record, I did not expect anyone to agree with me, I just got angry and wanted to vent. Actually, it happens more and more often that TL makes me angry and I will probably need to do something about it. First thing would be stop reading General, second, much harder, removing ABL from subsrcibed threads. That place use to be so weirdly calming, now it's just a parade of reasones to get upset about interspersed with mods competing who bans people better.
If I could convince myself to do those two things, I could maybe just go to LRs (even though I can't post much, because I am too slow of a typer for that pace and don't want to miss the actual games, or, worse, the wisdom of Artosis) and read a weirdo blog once in a while and live happily ever after.
Today, for therapeutic reasons, I went to read som SRS and antisrs, at least I have that to remind me that in relative terms, TL is still pretty sane.
|
Islam is super easy to criticize in a sober and reasonable way. Just comparing it to nazism is inflammatory. Also this board is not too well adapted for discussing religious stuff. SJWs will say there's no problem with Islam and everyone is being a dick, other people will lump all Muslims together and suggest that they're all extremists. Might as well cut insanely inflammatory stuff before it goes full out crazy.
+ Show Spoiler +Organized religion is dangerous and many "moderate" Muslims support the actions of extremists (a LOT of "regular" Muslims worldwide are perfectly fine with the senseless massacre of the Charlie Hebdo folks.) None of it has anything to do with Hitler. Discussing touchy subjects with ridiculous nonsense is not a good idea.
|
On July 01 2015 03:37 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 03:11 opisska wrote: Expectedly, the irony is lost on everyone who has replied. He just made two examples, he did not even compare one against the other and literaly made no comments on their similarity. If I say that humans and butterflies are an example of living creatures, am I saying that humans are basically the same as butterflies? He just made examples of two things that he would not allow while allowing some other thing and presumably if he used any one of those, it would have been "correct".
The warning is obviously triggered by the unthinkability of seeing "Quran" and "Main Kampf" so uncomfortably next to each other, and that feeling has obviously arisen from PC. If this were any other two things, that are just vaguely related, not one that has "religion" and other that has "Hitler" on it, noone would blink an eye, but this merely putting these two in one sentence is politically incorrect enough to warrant a warning - in a thread about how stupid PC is.
There is really nothing to discuss and no excuses to be made, since the warning was spelled out, so there is no room for creative interpretation. The rest of the guy's posting is irrelevant to the matter. "He should be banned for ignorance and stupidity" is just a way to veil the requirement of PC to other words, so that it does not seem so obvious.
Anyway, the paradox is the same as always: why does TL even allow threads on a topic (PC, in this case) when the stance on that topic is already mandated by the moderation? Where is the room for a discussion, when it has been already decided, what is right? Dude : do you even know about SixStrings' mod and posting history? He already grasped like every chance he ever had to push the points that the Quran is evil because the Quran explicitly incites to kill people (while according to him the Bible is free of everything of that sort), that Islam at its root is not compatible with scientific & societal progress (factually because historically false) and that all Muslims are either barbarians or terrorists (I don't think I'll even comment on this one). Once you factor this in, there's little doubt that he wasn't just putting Mein Kampf and the Quran side to side by coincidence, and what he meant becomes clear as crystal. And even if the mods would ignore his post history (and afaik they don't ignore it), putting the Quran as an example of a book that actively incite to hate and violence is not only stupid and ignorant, but also dishonest, as it ignores 99.999% of the book. Meanwhile, Mein Kampf is a book which contains a vast majority of content pushing for hatred and violence. Lastly, your comparison is bad because it doesn't involve a positive or negative judgment like the originally incriminated sentence. You comparison would be valid if he simply said "Mein Kampf and the Qu'ran are two examples of books.", which is factually correct.
Wow, I don't even know where to start. This is utterly unfair.
You're either extremely disingenuous or you really have a bad memory. I have repeatedly made it clear that
a) I obviously don't think that Muslims are 'barbarians or terrorists'. I've made that so abundantly clear in so many posts... b) I frequently said that the bible isn't better. The Old Testament is equally violent, the new testament is more peaceful but equally unpleasant. c) I realise that you can make a peaceful religion out of a terrible book. Judaism seems much more appealing to me than Christianity, yet their "origin story" is much more violent. Yet they managed to make a progressive, inclusive, science embracing religion out of that.
What you are right about, though: I didn't put those books side by side by accident.
Why do people just assume I'm lying instead of reading the damn thing? I don't understand this. It's literally a book about killing infidels, including jews. It's VERY like Mein Kampf in that regard, albeit much better written.
Is it part of your political correctness that you're so afraid of being proven wrong that you won't even open the book? Open it in the middle, though, it starts out rather peaceful. Though as Muhammed's power and influence grows, so does his pugnacity. The latter two thirds are literally all violence against non-believers.
I didn't want to be provocative. I didn't want to incite hate. I just thought of two books that are very similar in their message.
So sorry, opisska. I wasn't being clever or ironic, I just don't have some kind of reverence for a book that by any other name would be filed under 'Hateful antisemitic propaganda'.
|
On July 01 2015 02:35 The_Templar wrote: He's asking why books that are aimed towards or against a group of people in an undesirable way are allowed when the same kind of symbols aren't. By comparing the Qu'ran to Mein Kampf, he's putting both in a very negative context and basically saying that Islams are literally like hitler.
That's a stupid and absurd thing to say.
Comparing one aspect of the books (both incite people to kill jews) is in no way the same as comparing Muslims to Nazis.
First of all, nobody even read Mein fucking Kampf, albeit Hitler-critical scholars. It was distributed and treated like the bible by the Nazis, but you would have been hard pressed to find even Burschen from the Hiterjugend to tell you what the thing is about.
Ah forget it, this is pointless.
|
On July 01 2015 04:49 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 02:35 The_Templar wrote: He's asking why books that are aimed towards or against a group of people in an undesirable way are allowed when the same kind of symbols aren't. By comparing the Qu'ran to Mein Kampf, he's putting both in a very negative context and basically saying that Islams are literally like hitler. First of all, nobody even read Mein fucking Kampf, albeit Hitler-critical scholars. It was distributed and treated like the bible by the Neo-Nazis, but you would have been hard pressed to find even Burschen from the Hiterjugend to tell you what the thing is about. This is not correct. The idea that nobody read Mein Kampf is a post war myth, and was shown to be false. There was a great demand in public libraries and it found big sales quantity long before it was freely distributed.
|
Actually it's the Muslim Hadith that commands all the weird stuff.
|
On July 01 2015 05:35 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 04:49 SixStrings wrote:On July 01 2015 02:35 The_Templar wrote: He's asking why books that are aimed towards or against a group of people in an undesirable way are allowed when the same kind of symbols aren't. By comparing the Qu'ran to Mein Kampf, he's putting both in a very negative context and basically saying that Islams are literally like hitler. First of all, nobody even read Mein fucking Kampf, albeit Hitler-critical scholars. It was distributed and treated like the bible by the Neo-Nazis, but you would have been hard pressed to find even Burschen from the Hiterjugend to tell you what the thing is about. This is not correct. The idea that nobody read Mein Kampf is a post war myth, and was shown to be false. There was a great demand in public libraries and it found big sales quantity long before it was freely distributed.
I can't believe I wrote Neo-Nazis.
|
|
On July 01 2015 05:46 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 05:35 Paljas wrote:On July 01 2015 04:49 SixStrings wrote:On July 01 2015 02:35 The_Templar wrote: He's asking why books that are aimed towards or against a group of people in an undesirable way are allowed when the same kind of symbols aren't. By comparing the Qu'ran to Mein Kampf, he's putting both in a very negative context and basically saying that Islams are literally like hitler. First of all, nobody even read Mein fucking Kampf, albeit Hitler-critical scholars. It was distributed and treated like the bible by the Neo-Nazis, but you would have been hard pressed to find even Burschen from the Hiterjugend to tell you what the thing is about. This is not correct. The idea that nobody read Mein Kampf is a post war myth, and was shown to be false. There was a great demand in public libraries and it found big sales quantity long before it was freely distributed. I can't believe I wrote Neo-Nazis. I am well aware that you meant the actual Nazis at the time. My point still stands, your statement is factual incorrect.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 01 2015 04:12 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Organized religion is dangerous and many "moderate" Muslims support the actions of extremists (a LOT of "regular" Muslims worldwide are perfectly fine with the senseless massacre of the Charlie Hebdo folks.) None of it has anything to do with Hitler. Discussing touchy subjects with ridiculous nonsense is not a good idea. + Show Spoiler +what? I disagree with your statement completely but that's not the place to discuss it. Will comment on the second part though. I consider my family, friends and other muslim colleagues that I know as "regular" muslims whatever that means and each one of us was disgusted by the attacks. Peaceful protests and boycotts are the recommended routes in such a situation, not a massacre which is what happened in this case. Violence doesn't change anything at all. So next time, please refrain from making such blanket statements if possible.
|
What if "Mein Kampf" wasn't the offensive of the two books...I am sure there is a joke in here about TL and it's mods.
|
On July 01 2015 06:22 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 04:12 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Organized religion is dangerous and many "moderate" Muslims support the actions of extremists (a LOT of "regular" Muslims worldwide are perfectly fine with the senseless massacre of the Charlie Hebdo folks.) None of it has anything to do with Hitler. Discussing touchy subjects with ridiculous nonsense is not a good idea. + Show Spoiler +what? I disagree with your statement completely but that's not the place to discuss it. Will comment on the second part though. I consider my family, friends and other muslim colleagues that I know as "regular" muslims whatever that means and each one of us was disgusted by the attacks. Peaceful protests and boycotts are the recommended routes in such a situation, not a massacre which is what happened in this case. Violence doesn't change anything at all. So next time, please refrain from making such blanket statements if possible. It's not so much blanket statements. There IS a problem.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 01 2015 04:12 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Organized religion is dangerous and many "moderate" Muslims support the actions of extremists (a LOT of "regular" Muslims worldwide are perfectly fine with the senseless massacre of the Charlie Hebdo folks.) None of it has anything to do with Hitler. Discussing touchy subjects with ridiculous nonsense is not a good idea.
+ Show Spoiler +The statistic you cite refers to the question "I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, of which 25% said yes. There is a fine difference between having some sympathy for the motives and having sympathy for the methodsJust like I can have sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank without supporting terrorist actions.
Go out and meet some fucking Muslims before you decide to say that a fourth of them support terrorism.
|
On July 01 2015 11:11 Pandain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 04:12 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Organized religion is dangerous and many "moderate" Muslims support the actions of extremists (a LOT of "regular" Muslims worldwide are perfectly fine with the senseless massacre of the Charlie Hebdo folks.) None of it has anything to do with Hitler. Discussing touchy subjects with ridiculous nonsense is not a good idea. + Show Spoiler +The statistic you cite refers to the question "I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, of which 25% said yes. There is a fine difference between having some sympathy for the motives and having sympathy for the methodsJust like I can have sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank without supporting terrorist actions.
Go out and meet some fucking Muslims before you decide to say that a fourth of them support terrorism. + Show Spoiler +I know plenty and literally every single Muslim I know is a great person, especially the family of my cousin's wife who are all amazing people. But this is why we can't have nice things, I cite an article which shows us that there is cause for concern, and there are plenty like this.
I said "there is a problem", I showed one example of this, 27% of UK Muslims (not all Muslims) have some sympathy for the terrorists who have massacred cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. If you read further down, only 68% of Muslims in the UK said that "acts of violence against those who published such images [of the prophet Mohammed] could never be justified", meaning that 32% think otherwise.
There are other stats, namely that literally 100% of Muslims in the UK are against gay marriage, which is not just a religious thing because the numbers in other countries such as France are not NEARLY that dramatic.
I think it's fair to say that there is A PROBLEM (not that "a fourth of them support terrorism"). There is a problem because, for one, radicalization is a problem that the West is currently facing, and it is a problem to me because culturally speaking I disagree with some of their beliefs, not unlike how I disagree with the beliefs of republicans (and I consider some of their practices to be "a problem" too.
These are social and political issues that can't even be discussed even in this setting, where I believe that I'm using reasonable words to describe my perception of a political problem, but the prevalence of racism is so high that whenever I raise concerns, people instantly think I'm a bigot.
For the longest time, in fact until the Charlie Hebdo events, I was just like you. Criticism of Islam in my eye couldn't be anything more than racism, the extremists were an irrelevant minority, there was no real problem. But the Charlie Hebdo events struck me because while it seems to me like the vast majority of Muslims in the West are perfectly great members of our society, the number of moderates who tacitly support and thus legitimize the actions of the extremist minority is not negligible. All over the world, there were muslim riots, burning of churches, some murders of Christians. And in the west, we saw that some Muslims agreed with those overseas who rioted against Charlie Hebdo, even though most of their staff had just been murdered.
Here in small time canadian province, Quebec, literally dozens of kids tried (and some succeeded) in going to Syria to fight for ISIS, partially due to floating radicalization circles.
So why can't we talk about this? Is the mere suggestion that there are more "moderates" who passively support terrorism so outlandish that I magically am an asshole for suggesting it? And is it WRONG for me to say that it is a social problem, to me, that many women are forced to wear certain garments by their husbands (which is no simple problem)?
I think that your reaction is very unreasonable.
Edit: By the way, I mischaracterized the article in my previous post, it's not true that a quarter of Muslims are fine with the terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo, but I don't see how 27% of muslims having "some sympathy" for terrorists is not a concern to you. Furthermore, you acted as if the idea that 25% of Muslims (suggesting all of them) being fine with terrorism was outlandish. Did you see the protests worldwide after the massacres? Did you hear about the riots? All of those people, their reaction to the massacre was just that. Charlie Hebdo's people got massacred. Fuck Charlie Hebdo. Let's burn churches. Literally hundreds of thousands of them in the streets of various countries. Iran, Pakistan, Niger... All pissed at the people who died for drawing stuff. Is it that outlandish that some of those deeply ingrained religious values would still exist, with burning hot passion, in the hearts of Western Muslims? Is the question so fucking preposterous that it cannot be discussed?
And for what it's worth I'm fiercely pro-Palestine. I recognize that it's all too easy to just outright label me as an idiot though, so I guess further trying to defend myself is useless when some debates just cannot take place without people flipping the fuck out.
This is painful to me because I think of myself as a guy who's not particularly smart but who tries his god damn hardest to be intellectually honest. I sometimes makes mistakes, I apologize for them. I admitted to having mischaracterized some stats just in this post. But the reason why this is so fucking annoying to me is because there are these topics which simply cannot be brought up. This is one of them. It's so fucking annoying. I'll argue about everything, I will. I'll sit on the US politics thread and defend black people, I've spent countless hours shitting on the mass media's coverage of the "baltimore riots" as they called them. I've fought tooth and nail for gay rights, I've debated with people on tens of topics. But this is one where any criticism is instantly called racism by simple fucking people with simple fucking minds. How the fuck do they do it, I don't know, it's fucking maddening. When I link you an article like this with concerning statistics about the beliefs of Muslims, even though we know full well they're not terrorists, your reaction shouldn't be to tell me to "go talk to Muslims" as if that would somehow give me a representative understanding of anything. The proper answer to 24% of UK Muslims disagreeing with the statement "violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified"" is not "go talk to Muslims". It's that at the very least might be kind of a cause for concern, and if you refuse to be concerned by the case of the UK, accept that this 24% figure seems incredibly high to people like myself who couldn't fucking believe it.
Edit2: Sorry for the language and whatnot. Emotion got the better of me. I really don't think I'm unreasonable, and to just act like there's no discussion to be had, IMO, would be unfortunate.
|
On July 01 2015 12:05 Djzapz wrote:But this is one where any criticism is instantly called racism by simple fucking people with simple fucking minds.
It's similar to how people defend Israel by implying that anybody that criticizes it is anti-semitic.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 01 2015 12:05 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 11:11 Pandain wrote:On July 01 2015 04:12 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Organized religion is dangerous and many "moderate" Muslims support the actions of extremists (a LOT of "regular" Muslims worldwide are perfectly fine with the senseless massacre of the Charlie Hebdo folks.) None of it has anything to do with Hitler. Discussing touchy subjects with ridiculous nonsense is not a good idea. + Show Spoiler +The statistic you cite refers to the question "I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, of which 25% said yes. There is a fine difference between having some sympathy for the motives and having sympathy for the methodsJust like I can have sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank without supporting terrorist actions.
Go out and meet some fucking Muslims before you decide to say that a fourth of them support terrorism. + Show Spoiler +I know plenty and literally every single Muslim I know is a great person, especially the family of my cousin's wife who are all amazing people. But this is why we can't have nice things, I cite an article which shows us that there is cause for concern, and there are plenty like this.
I said "there is a problem", I showed one example of this, 27% of UK Muslims (not all Muslims) have some sympathy for the terrorists who have massacred cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. If you read further down, only 68% of Muslims in the UK said that "acts of violence against those who published such images [of the prophet Mohammed] could never be justified", meaning that 32% think otherwise.
There are other stats, namely that literally 100% of Muslims in the UK are against gay marriage, which is not just a religious thing because the numbers in other countries such as France are not NEARLY that dramatic.
I think it's fair to say that there is A PROBLEM (not that "a fourth of them support terrorism"). There is a problem because, for one, radicalization is a problem that the West is currently facing, and it is a problem to me because culturally speaking I disagree with some of their beliefs, not unlike how I disagree with the beliefs of republicans (and I consider some of their practices to be "a problem" too.
These are social and political issues that can't even be discussed even in this setting, where I believe that I'm using reasonable words to describe my perception of a political problem, but the prevalence of racism is so high that whenever I raise concerns, people instantly think I'm a bigot.
For the longest time, in fact until the Charlie Hebdo events, I was just like you. Criticism of Islam in my eye couldn't be anything more than racism, the extremists were an irrelevant minority, there was no real problem. But the Charlie Hebdo events struck me because while it seems to me like the vast majority of Muslims in the West are perfectly great members of our society, the number of moderates who tacitly support and thus legitimize the actions of the extremist minority is not negligible. All over the world, there were muslim riots, burning of churches, some murders of Christians. And in the west, we saw that some Muslims agreed with those overseas who rioted against Charlie Hebdo, even though most of their staff had just been murdered.
Here in small time canadian province, Quebec, literally dozens of kids tried (and some succeeded) in going to Syria to fight for ISIS, partially due to floating radicalization circles.
So why can't we talk about this? Is the mere suggestion that there are more "moderates" who passively support terrorism so outlandish that I magically am an asshole for suggesting it? And is it WRONG for me to say that it is a social problem, to me, that many women are forced to wear certain garments by their husbands (which is no simple problem)?
I think that your reaction is very unreasonable.
Edit: By the way, I mischaracterized the article in my previous post, it's not true that a quarter of Muslims are fine with the terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo. But you acted as if the idea that 25% of Muslims (suggesting all of them) being fine with terrorism was outlandish. Did you see the protests worldwide after the massacres? Did you hear about the riots? All of those people, their reaction to the massacre was just that. Charlie Hebdo's people got massacred. Fuck Charlie Hebdo. Let's burn churches. Literally hundreds of thousands of them in the streets of various countries. Iran, Pakistan, Niger... All pissed at the people who died for drawing stuff. Is it that outlandish that some of those deeply ingrained religious values would still exist, with burning hot passion, in the hearts of Western Muslims? Is the question so fucking preposterous that it cannot be discussed?
+ Show Spoiler +I'm sure many in the muslim community in the west and other countries abroad feel targeted and that the situation is only getting worse. Then, add on the fact that you have hateful pictures drawn of our prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and you can kinda see why things go wild after.
As I said in my previous posts though, I and many others don't support such actions. I personally can't explain why people can't restrain their emotions after such obviously baitful drawings and use peaceful protests and boycotts to get across the point that this stuff is wrong. I think it goes back the idea of upbringing. It would be impossible to explain every single muslims action. Infact, it would be ridiculous for me to even try to do it. Everyone has their own upbringing with more or less emphasis on different aspects of faith (or none for some people) and there's a ton of muslims around the world (1.5+ billion).
Then you also have to explore the concept of freedom. People argue that freedom means you can do anything you want but that's not really true. Freedom to do anything also has its limit and those cartoons and many others certainly surpass that limit imo. Also, why is it surprising that hundreds of thousands of people are protesting against the drawings? In all honesty, I don't remember seeing those happening much around the time the massacre took place, only before but it goes back to my original point, that some feel that the cartoons and other acts have been targeting the muslim community for a long time now.
Please calm down, not sure why you are getting riled up in your post. As for ISIS, fuck them. It always pains me when some people lump ISIS with muslims especially when anyone whose has been following the news will realize that ISIS is not differentiating with who they kill, aka, they are killing both muslims, christians and other people indiscriminately. In other words, they are a plague on the earth and anyone who joins them deserves only death for trying to target other fellow humans beings.
As for this: And is it WRONG for me to say that it is a social problem, to me, that many women are forced to wear certain garments by their husbands (which is no simple problem)? My family, mom and dad's side, everyone chooses when to wear the head garment or not (hijab only). To be more clear, religion dictates that a women should wear it, however, the family shouldn't be forcing them to wear it. They'll have to make that decision themselves sooner or later. If they decide not to do so and I know family members who don't, the family can't force them to reconsider (or shouldn't at least since its not their decision to make). Also, while we are on that subject, just to clear any misunderstandings (incase), other garments like the niqab etc... are NOT muslim garments. I see people mix these up all the time and it irritates me to no end. I dunno how many questions I answered but hope I managed to clarify some things.
|
On July 01 2015 12:46 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 12:05 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 11:11 Pandain wrote:On July 01 2015 04:12 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Organized religion is dangerous and many "moderate" Muslims support the actions of extremists (a LOT of "regular" Muslims worldwide are perfectly fine with the senseless massacre of the Charlie Hebdo folks.) None of it has anything to do with Hitler. Discussing touchy subjects with ridiculous nonsense is not a good idea. + Show Spoiler +The statistic you cite refers to the question "I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, of which 25% said yes. There is a fine difference between having some sympathy for the motives and having sympathy for the methodsJust like I can have sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank without supporting terrorist actions.
Go out and meet some fucking Muslims before you decide to say that a fourth of them support terrorism. + Show Spoiler +I know plenty and literally every single Muslim I know is a great person, especially the family of my cousin's wife who are all amazing people. But this is why we can't have nice things, I cite an article which shows us that there is cause for concern, and there are plenty like this.
I said "there is a problem", I showed one example of this, 27% of UK Muslims (not all Muslims) have some sympathy for the terrorists who have massacred cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. If you read further down, only 68% of Muslims in the UK said that "acts of violence against those who published such images [of the prophet Mohammed] could never be justified", meaning that 32% think otherwise.
There are other stats, namely that literally 100% of Muslims in the UK are against gay marriage, which is not just a religious thing because the numbers in other countries such as France are not NEARLY that dramatic.
I think it's fair to say that there is A PROBLEM (not that "a fourth of them support terrorism"). There is a problem because, for one, radicalization is a problem that the West is currently facing, and it is a problem to me because culturally speaking I disagree with some of their beliefs, not unlike how I disagree with the beliefs of republicans (and I consider some of their practices to be "a problem" too.
These are social and political issues that can't even be discussed even in this setting, where I believe that I'm using reasonable words to describe my perception of a political problem, but the prevalence of racism is so high that whenever I raise concerns, people instantly think I'm a bigot.
For the longest time, in fact until the Charlie Hebdo events, I was just like you. Criticism of Islam in my eye couldn't be anything more than racism, the extremists were an irrelevant minority, there was no real problem. But the Charlie Hebdo events struck me because while it seems to me like the vast majority of Muslims in the West are perfectly great members of our society, the number of moderates who tacitly support and thus legitimize the actions of the extremist minority is not negligible. All over the world, there were muslim riots, burning of churches, some murders of Christians. And in the west, we saw that some Muslims agreed with those overseas who rioted against Charlie Hebdo, even though most of their staff had just been murdered.
Here in small time canadian province, Quebec, literally dozens of kids tried (and some succeeded) in going to Syria to fight for ISIS, partially due to floating radicalization circles.
So why can't we talk about this? Is the mere suggestion that there are more "moderates" who passively support terrorism so outlandish that I magically am an asshole for suggesting it? And is it WRONG for me to say that it is a social problem, to me, that many women are forced to wear certain garments by their husbands (which is no simple problem)?
I think that your reaction is very unreasonable.
Edit: By the way, I mischaracterized the article in my previous post, it's not true that a quarter of Muslims are fine with the terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo. But you acted as if the idea that 25% of Muslims (suggesting all of them) being fine with terrorism was outlandish. Did you see the protests worldwide after the massacres? Did you hear about the riots? All of those people, their reaction to the massacre was just that. Charlie Hebdo's people got massacred. Fuck Charlie Hebdo. Let's burn churches. Literally hundreds of thousands of them in the streets of various countries. Iran, Pakistan, Niger... All pissed at the people who died for drawing stuff. Is it that outlandish that some of those deeply ingrained religious values would still exist, with burning hot passion, in the hearts of Western Muslims? Is the question so fucking preposterous that it cannot be discussed?
+ Show Spoiler +I'm sure many in the muslim community in the west and other countries abroad feel targeted and that the situation is only getting worse. Then, add on the fact that you have hateful pictures drawn of our prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and you can kinda see why things go wild after.
As I said in my previous posts though, I and many others don't support such actions. I personally can't explain why people can't restrain their emotions after such obviously baitful drawings and use peaceful protests and boycotts to get across the point that this stuff is wrong. I think it goes back the idea of upbringing. It would be impossible to explain every single muslims action. Infact, it would be ridiculous for me to even try to do it. Everyone has their own upbringing with more or less emphasis on different aspects of faith (or none for some people) and there's a ton of muslims around the world (1.5+ billion).
Then you also have to explore the concept of freedom. People argue that freedom means you can do anything you want but that's not really true. Freedom to do anything also has its limit and those cartoons and many others certainly surpass that limit imo. Also, why is it surprising that hundreds of thousands of people are protesting against the drawings? In all honesty, I don't remember seeing those happening much around the time the massacre took place, only before but it goes back to my original point, that some feel that the cartoons and other acts have been targeting the muslim community for a long time now.
Please calm down, not sure why you are getting riled up in your post. As for ISIS, fuck them. It always pains me when some people lump ISIS with muslims especially when anyone whose has been following the news will realize that ISIS is not differentiating with who they kill, aka, they are killing both muslims, christians and other people indiscriminately. In other words, they are a plague on the earth and anyone who joins them deserves only death for trying to target other fellow humans beings.
As for this: And is it WRONG for me to say that it is a social problem, to me, that many women are forced to wear certain garments by their husbands (which is no simple problem)? My family, mom and dad's side, everyone chooses when to wear the head garment or not (hijab only). To be more clear, religion dictates that a women should wear it, however, the family shouldn't be forcing them to wear it. They'll have to make that decision themselves sooner or later. If they decide not to do so and I know family members who don't, the family can't force them to reconsider (or shouldn't at least since its not their decision to make). Also, while we are on that subject, just to clear any misunderstandings (incase), other garments like the niqab etc... are NOT muslim garments. I see people mix these up all the time and it irritates me to no end. I dunno how many questions I answered but hope I managed to clarify some things. + Show Spoiler +I don't believe that those cartoons surpass "freedom" or whatever that means. I can make caricatures of Jesus and all that and it's never a problem. I'm a firm believer that we can make jokes about anything.
ISIS is not lumped with Muslims but it's definitely an expression of Islamic extremism. To act as if they were disconnected is not reasonable. Few Muslims have anything to do with ISIS and obviously a vast majority of them hate ISIS, but in the west there are these groups that do exist, and do "recruit" for ISIS. I think 5-6 teenagers (around 15-16 years), some of them girls, managed to make it to Syria's ISIS controlled areas. I hate to even think about what they'll do to those kids, if they're even still alive.
I don't understand the difference between "Muslim garments" and otherwise, all I know is that there are many men who "force" their wife and female children to wear certain clothes, namely clothes which hide the hair and the face of their women in certain cases. While it can be argued that many women make those choices by themselves, there are many, myself included, who feel like there is peer pressure. I think it's a problem, especially in those cases where the man is directly forbidding his wife to show her hair or worse, her face, in public. It's not all fun and rainbows just because some women willfully wear it after being arguably raised in a culture which promotes this kind of submissive behavior out of women.
And just to be clear, literally everything I say applies to fractions of varying sizes of the Muslim population, and I consider the problems I bring up to be of various importance. My opinion of some of those clothing as symbols of women being oppressed is a problem which cannot be adequately solved (forcing women not to wear it would be oppressive also). But certain other things and practices by certain portions of the muslim population strike me as completely out of phrase with my sense of morality. Anyway I'm off to sleep, cheers.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 01 2015 13:23 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 12:46 BigFan wrote:On July 01 2015 12:05 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 11:11 Pandain wrote:On July 01 2015 04:12 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Organized religion is dangerous and many "moderate" Muslims support the actions of extremists (a LOT of "regular" Muslims worldwide are perfectly fine with the senseless massacre of the Charlie Hebdo folks.) None of it has anything to do with Hitler. Discussing touchy subjects with ridiculous nonsense is not a good idea. + Show Spoiler +The statistic you cite refers to the question "I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, of which 25% said yes. There is a fine difference between having some sympathy for the motives and having sympathy for the methodsJust like I can have sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank without supporting terrorist actions.
Go out and meet some fucking Muslims before you decide to say that a fourth of them support terrorism. + Show Spoiler +I know plenty and literally every single Muslim I know is a great person, especially the family of my cousin's wife who are all amazing people. But this is why we can't have nice things, I cite an article which shows us that there is cause for concern, and there are plenty like this.
I said "there is a problem", I showed one example of this, 27% of UK Muslims (not all Muslims) have some sympathy for the terrorists who have massacred cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. If you read further down, only 68% of Muslims in the UK said that "acts of violence against those who published such images [of the prophet Mohammed] could never be justified", meaning that 32% think otherwise.
There are other stats, namely that literally 100% of Muslims in the UK are against gay marriage, which is not just a religious thing because the numbers in other countries such as France are not NEARLY that dramatic.
I think it's fair to say that there is A PROBLEM (not that "a fourth of them support terrorism"). There is a problem because, for one, radicalization is a problem that the West is currently facing, and it is a problem to me because culturally speaking I disagree with some of their beliefs, not unlike how I disagree with the beliefs of republicans (and I consider some of their practices to be "a problem" too.
These are social and political issues that can't even be discussed even in this setting, where I believe that I'm using reasonable words to describe my perception of a political problem, but the prevalence of racism is so high that whenever I raise concerns, people instantly think I'm a bigot.
For the longest time, in fact until the Charlie Hebdo events, I was just like you. Criticism of Islam in my eye couldn't be anything more than racism, the extremists were an irrelevant minority, there was no real problem. But the Charlie Hebdo events struck me because while it seems to me like the vast majority of Muslims in the West are perfectly great members of our society, the number of moderates who tacitly support and thus legitimize the actions of the extremist minority is not negligible. All over the world, there were muslim riots, burning of churches, some murders of Christians. And in the west, we saw that some Muslims agreed with those overseas who rioted against Charlie Hebdo, even though most of their staff had just been murdered.
Here in small time canadian province, Quebec, literally dozens of kids tried (and some succeeded) in going to Syria to fight for ISIS, partially due to floating radicalization circles.
So why can't we talk about this? Is the mere suggestion that there are more "moderates" who passively support terrorism so outlandish that I magically am an asshole for suggesting it? And is it WRONG for me to say that it is a social problem, to me, that many women are forced to wear certain garments by their husbands (which is no simple problem)?
I think that your reaction is very unreasonable.
Edit: By the way, I mischaracterized the article in my previous post, it's not true that a quarter of Muslims are fine with the terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo. But you acted as if the idea that 25% of Muslims (suggesting all of them) being fine with terrorism was outlandish. Did you see the protests worldwide after the massacres? Did you hear about the riots? All of those people, their reaction to the massacre was just that. Charlie Hebdo's people got massacred. Fuck Charlie Hebdo. Let's burn churches. Literally hundreds of thousands of them in the streets of various countries. Iran, Pakistan, Niger... All pissed at the people who died for drawing stuff. Is it that outlandish that some of those deeply ingrained religious values would still exist, with burning hot passion, in the hearts of Western Muslims? Is the question so fucking preposterous that it cannot be discussed?
+ Show Spoiler +I'm sure many in the muslim community in the west and other countries abroad feel targeted and that the situation is only getting worse. Then, add on the fact that you have hateful pictures drawn of our prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and you can kinda see why things go wild after.
As I said in my previous posts though, I and many others don't support such actions. I personally can't explain why people can't restrain their emotions after such obviously baitful drawings and use peaceful protests and boycotts to get across the point that this stuff is wrong. I think it goes back the idea of upbringing. It would be impossible to explain every single muslims action. Infact, it would be ridiculous for me to even try to do it. Everyone has their own upbringing with more or less emphasis on different aspects of faith (or none for some people) and there's a ton of muslims around the world (1.5+ billion).
Then you also have to explore the concept of freedom. People argue that freedom means you can do anything you want but that's not really true. Freedom to do anything also has its limit and those cartoons and many others certainly surpass that limit imo. Also, why is it surprising that hundreds of thousands of people are protesting against the drawings? In all honesty, I don't remember seeing those happening much around the time the massacre took place, only before but it goes back to my original point, that some feel that the cartoons and other acts have been targeting the muslim community for a long time now.
Please calm down, not sure why you are getting riled up in your post. As for ISIS, fuck them. It always pains me when some people lump ISIS with muslims especially when anyone whose has been following the news will realize that ISIS is not differentiating with who they kill, aka, they are killing both muslims, christians and other people indiscriminately. In other words, they are a plague on the earth and anyone who joins them deserves only death for trying to target other fellow humans beings.
As for this: And is it WRONG for me to say that it is a social problem, to me, that many women are forced to wear certain garments by their husbands (which is no simple problem)? My family, mom and dad's side, everyone chooses when to wear the head garment or not (hijab only). To be more clear, religion dictates that a women should wear it, however, the family shouldn't be forcing them to wear it. They'll have to make that decision themselves sooner or later. If they decide not to do so and I know family members who don't, the family can't force them to reconsider (or shouldn't at least since its not their decision to make). Also, while we are on that subject, just to clear any misunderstandings (incase), other garments like the niqab etc... are NOT muslim garments. I see people mix these up all the time and it irritates me to no end. I dunno how many questions I answered but hope I managed to clarify some things. + Show Spoiler +I don't believe that those cartoons surpass "freedom" or whatever that means. I can make caricatures of Jesus and all that and it's never a problem. I'm a firm believer that we can make jokes about anything.
ISIS is not lumped with Muslims but it's definitely an expression of Islamic (Shia) extremism. To act as if they were disconnected is not reasonable. Few Muslims have anything to do with ISIS and obviously a vast majority of them hate ISIS, but in the west there are these groups that do exist, and do "recruit" for ISIS. I think 5-6 teenagers (around 15-16 years), some of them girls, managed to make it to Syria's ISIS controlled areas. I hate to even think about what they'll do to those kids, if they're even still alive.
I don't understand the difference between "Muslim garments" and otherwise, all I know is that there are many men who "force" their wife and female children to wear certain clothes, namely clothes which hide the hair and the face of their women in certain cases. While it can be argued that many women make those choices by themselves, there are many, myself included, who feel like there is peer pressure. I think it's a problem, especially in those cases where the man is directly forbidding his wife to show her hair or worse, her face, in public. It's not all fun and rainbows just because some women willfully wear it after being arguably raised in a culture which promotes this kind of submissive behavior out of women.
And just to be clear, literally everything I say applies to fractions of varying sizes of the Muslim population, and I consider the problems I bring up to be of various importance. My opinion of some of those clothing as symbols of women being oppressed is a problem which cannot be adequately solved (forcing women not to wear it would be oppressive also). But certain other things and practices by certain portions of the muslim population strike me as completely out of phrase with my sense of morality. Anyway I'm off to sleep, cheers.
+ Show Spoiler +We will have to agree to disagree on the first point. I think those cartoons crossed the line of what was appropriate. I personally believe that you should not be making cartoons that mock people's faiths, beliefs etc... and I'm sure that I'm not the only one that shares that opinion. No, it's not related. I'm a Shia muslim and if you have followed the news of ISIS, you'll realize that they want to exterminate Shia muslims. They consider us infidels so we're at the top of their extermination list so what you wrote makes no sense. In other words, its not Shia extremism at all. It's just a stupid group of people trying to use islam as a scapegoat for their immoral actions. If you think otherwise especially with the crap that they do like burning people alive or throwing people off buildings, I have nothing else to say. I sincerely hope that they can catch all those responsible for this stupid recruitment behaviour and put them in jail for life. The only muslim garment that women should wear is the hijab. The other garment such as the niqab and others are not muslim garments. The niqab and other variations of it cover the face while the hijab covers mostly the hair, ears and a bit of the chin. Islam only asks that women cover their hair and certain length of clothing so none of the niqab or w/e the other variations are called. Can't say much aside from the fact that there is no peer pressure in my family's case since my family understands its a choice that the women needs to make. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree with your last part. night!
|
Why do you discuss in spoilers, do you think that the mods don't see that or what? Anyway, I think both of you are pretty reasonable guys. Djzapz sadly undermines his argument by some factual flaws (like ISIS were Shia extremists), but other then that, your exchange shows that even pepole who are seemingly "on different sides of the river" can have a reasonable talk, and that's what we really need to have now.
One thing irks me really: BigFan, I am sorry, but you just do not understand the concept of freedom in the same way in which people like me see it. Your idea of freedom is so disconnected from mine that one of us should probably start using a different word. In my world, there is absolutely zero question about that the idea that one's freedom should be limited by others' feelings is completely ridiculous. You should think about that.
|
For people like him, the right not to be offended outweighs your right of freedom of speech.
That's objectionable enough, but worse is the fact that apparently it's okay to make fun of actual, living people, but depicting a warmongering, semi-fictional, bloodthirsty child rapist in a bad light is somehow not.
I dare anyone to explain to me how that isn't absurd.
|
On July 01 2015 15:05 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 13:23 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 12:46 BigFan wrote:On July 01 2015 12:05 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 11:11 Pandain wrote:On July 01 2015 04:12 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Organized religion is dangerous and many "moderate" Muslims support the actions of extremists (a LOT of "regular" Muslims worldwide are perfectly fine with the senseless massacre of the Charlie Hebdo folks.) None of it has anything to do with Hitler. Discussing touchy subjects with ridiculous nonsense is not a good idea. + Show Spoiler +The statistic you cite refers to the question "I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, of which 25% said yes. There is a fine difference between having some sympathy for the motives and having sympathy for the methodsJust like I can have sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank without supporting terrorist actions.
Go out and meet some fucking Muslims before you decide to say that a fourth of them support terrorism. + Show Spoiler +I know plenty and literally every single Muslim I know is a great person, especially the family of my cousin's wife who are all amazing people. But this is why we can't have nice things, I cite an article which shows us that there is cause for concern, and there are plenty like this.
I said "there is a problem", I showed one example of this, 27% of UK Muslims (not all Muslims) have some sympathy for the terrorists who have massacred cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. If you read further down, only 68% of Muslims in the UK said that "acts of violence against those who published such images [of the prophet Mohammed] could never be justified", meaning that 32% think otherwise.
There are other stats, namely that literally 100% of Muslims in the UK are against gay marriage, which is not just a religious thing because the numbers in other countries such as France are not NEARLY that dramatic.
I think it's fair to say that there is A PROBLEM (not that "a fourth of them support terrorism"). There is a problem because, for one, radicalization is a problem that the West is currently facing, and it is a problem to me because culturally speaking I disagree with some of their beliefs, not unlike how I disagree with the beliefs of republicans (and I consider some of their practices to be "a problem" too.
These are social and political issues that can't even be discussed even in this setting, where I believe that I'm using reasonable words to describe my perception of a political problem, but the prevalence of racism is so high that whenever I raise concerns, people instantly think I'm a bigot.
For the longest time, in fact until the Charlie Hebdo events, I was just like you. Criticism of Islam in my eye couldn't be anything more than racism, the extremists were an irrelevant minority, there was no real problem. But the Charlie Hebdo events struck me because while it seems to me like the vast majority of Muslims in the West are perfectly great members of our society, the number of moderates who tacitly support and thus legitimize the actions of the extremist minority is not negligible. All over the world, there were muslim riots, burning of churches, some murders of Christians. And in the west, we saw that some Muslims agreed with those overseas who rioted against Charlie Hebdo, even though most of their staff had just been murdered.
Here in small time canadian province, Quebec, literally dozens of kids tried (and some succeeded) in going to Syria to fight for ISIS, partially due to floating radicalization circles.
So why can't we talk about this? Is the mere suggestion that there are more "moderates" who passively support terrorism so outlandish that I magically am an asshole for suggesting it? And is it WRONG for me to say that it is a social problem, to me, that many women are forced to wear certain garments by their husbands (which is no simple problem)?
I think that your reaction is very unreasonable.
Edit: By the way, I mischaracterized the article in my previous post, it's not true that a quarter of Muslims are fine with the terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo. But you acted as if the idea that 25% of Muslims (suggesting all of them) being fine with terrorism was outlandish. Did you see the protests worldwide after the massacres? Did you hear about the riots? All of those people, their reaction to the massacre was just that. Charlie Hebdo's people got massacred. Fuck Charlie Hebdo. Let's burn churches. Literally hundreds of thousands of them in the streets of various countries. Iran, Pakistan, Niger... All pissed at the people who died for drawing stuff. Is it that outlandish that some of those deeply ingrained religious values would still exist, with burning hot passion, in the hearts of Western Muslims? Is the question so fucking preposterous that it cannot be discussed?
+ Show Spoiler +I'm sure many in the muslim community in the west and other countries abroad feel targeted and that the situation is only getting worse. Then, add on the fact that you have hateful pictures drawn of our prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and you can kinda see why things go wild after.
As I said in my previous posts though, I and many others don't support such actions. I personally can't explain why people can't restrain their emotions after such obviously baitful drawings and use peaceful protests and boycotts to get across the point that this stuff is wrong. I think it goes back the idea of upbringing. It would be impossible to explain every single muslims action. Infact, it would be ridiculous for me to even try to do it. Everyone has their own upbringing with more or less emphasis on different aspects of faith (or none for some people) and there's a ton of muslims around the world (1.5+ billion).
Then you also have to explore the concept of freedom. People argue that freedom means you can do anything you want but that's not really true. Freedom to do anything also has its limit and those cartoons and many others certainly surpass that limit imo. Also, why is it surprising that hundreds of thousands of people are protesting against the drawings? In all honesty, I don't remember seeing those happening much around the time the massacre took place, only before but it goes back to my original point, that some feel that the cartoons and other acts have been targeting the muslim community for a long time now.
Please calm down, not sure why you are getting riled up in your post. As for ISIS, fuck them. It always pains me when some people lump ISIS with muslims especially when anyone whose has been following the news will realize that ISIS is not differentiating with who they kill, aka, they are killing both muslims, christians and other people indiscriminately. In other words, they are a plague on the earth and anyone who joins them deserves only death for trying to target other fellow humans beings.
As for this: And is it WRONG for me to say that it is a social problem, to me, that many women are forced to wear certain garments by their husbands (which is no simple problem)? My family, mom and dad's side, everyone chooses when to wear the head garment or not (hijab only). To be more clear, religion dictates that a women should wear it, however, the family shouldn't be forcing them to wear it. They'll have to make that decision themselves sooner or later. If they decide not to do so and I know family members who don't, the family can't force them to reconsider (or shouldn't at least since its not their decision to make). Also, while we are on that subject, just to clear any misunderstandings (incase), other garments like the niqab etc... are NOT muslim garments. I see people mix these up all the time and it irritates me to no end. I dunno how many questions I answered but hope I managed to clarify some things. + Show Spoiler +I don't believe that those cartoons surpass "freedom" or whatever that means. I can make caricatures of Jesus and all that and it's never a problem. I'm a firm believer that we can make jokes about anything.
ISIS is not lumped with Muslims but it's definitely an expression of Islamic (Shia) extremism. To act as if they were disconnected is not reasonable. Few Muslims have anything to do with ISIS and obviously a vast majority of them hate ISIS, but in the west there are these groups that do exist, and do "recruit" for ISIS. I think 5-6 teenagers (around 15-16 years), some of them girls, managed to make it to Syria's ISIS controlled areas. I hate to even think about what they'll do to those kids, if they're even still alive.
I don't understand the difference between "Muslim garments" and otherwise, all I know is that there are many men who "force" their wife and female children to wear certain clothes, namely clothes which hide the hair and the face of their women in certain cases. While it can be argued that many women make those choices by themselves, there are many, myself included, who feel like there is peer pressure. I think it's a problem, especially in those cases where the man is directly forbidding his wife to show her hair or worse, her face, in public. It's not all fun and rainbows just because some women willfully wear it after being arguably raised in a culture which promotes this kind of submissive behavior out of women.
And just to be clear, literally everything I say applies to fractions of varying sizes of the Muslim population, and I consider the problems I bring up to be of various importance. My opinion of some of those clothing as symbols of women being oppressed is a problem which cannot be adequately solved (forcing women not to wear it would be oppressive also). But certain other things and practices by certain portions of the muslim population strike me as completely out of phrase with my sense of morality. Anyway I'm off to sleep, cheers.
+ Show Spoiler +We will have to agree to disagree on the first point. I think those cartoons crossed the line of what was appropriate. I personally believe that you should not be making cartoons that mock people's faiths, beliefs etc... and I'm sure that I'm not the only one that shares that opinion. The only muslim garment that women should wear is the hijab!
What the fuck. Can you even imagine a politician or public figure saying something like: "Women should wear this and cover their heads, but of course men are fine without it"?
|
On July 01 2015 18:24 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 15:05 BigFan wrote:On July 01 2015 13:23 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 12:46 BigFan wrote:On July 01 2015 12:05 Djzapz wrote:On July 01 2015 11:11 Pandain wrote:On July 01 2015 04:12 Djzapz wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Organized religion is dangerous and many "moderate" Muslims support the actions of extremists (a LOT of "regular" Muslims worldwide are perfectly fine with the senseless massacre of the Charlie Hebdo folks.) None of it has anything to do with Hitler. Discussing touchy subjects with ridiculous nonsense is not a good idea. + Show Spoiler +The statistic you cite refers to the question "I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris”, of which 25% said yes. There is a fine difference between having some sympathy for the motives and having sympathy for the methodsJust like I can have sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank without supporting terrorist actions.
Go out and meet some fucking Muslims before you decide to say that a fourth of them support terrorism. + Show Spoiler +I know plenty and literally every single Muslim I know is a great person, especially the family of my cousin's wife who are all amazing people. But this is why we can't have nice things, I cite an article which shows us that there is cause for concern, and there are plenty like this.
I said "there is a problem", I showed one example of this, 27% of UK Muslims (not all Muslims) have some sympathy for the terrorists who have massacred cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo. If you read further down, only 68% of Muslims in the UK said that "acts of violence against those who published such images [of the prophet Mohammed] could never be justified", meaning that 32% think otherwise.
There are other stats, namely that literally 100% of Muslims in the UK are against gay marriage, which is not just a religious thing because the numbers in other countries such as France are not NEARLY that dramatic.
I think it's fair to say that there is A PROBLEM (not that "a fourth of them support terrorism"). There is a problem because, for one, radicalization is a problem that the West is currently facing, and it is a problem to me because culturally speaking I disagree with some of their beliefs, not unlike how I disagree with the beliefs of republicans (and I consider some of their practices to be "a problem" too.
These are social and political issues that can't even be discussed even in this setting, where I believe that I'm using reasonable words to describe my perception of a political problem, but the prevalence of racism is so high that whenever I raise concerns, people instantly think I'm a bigot.
For the longest time, in fact until the Charlie Hebdo events, I was just like you. Criticism of Islam in my eye couldn't be anything more than racism, the extremists were an irrelevant minority, there was no real problem. But the Charlie Hebdo events struck me because while it seems to me like the vast majority of Muslims in the West are perfectly great members of our society, the number of moderates who tacitly support and thus legitimize the actions of the extremist minority is not negligible. All over the world, there were muslim riots, burning of churches, some murders of Christians. And in the west, we saw that some Muslims agreed with those overseas who rioted against Charlie Hebdo, even though most of their staff had just been murdered.
Here in small time canadian province, Quebec, literally dozens of kids tried (and some succeeded) in going to Syria to fight for ISIS, partially due to floating radicalization circles.
So why can't we talk about this? Is the mere suggestion that there are more "moderates" who passively support terrorism so outlandish that I magically am an asshole for suggesting it? And is it WRONG for me to say that it is a social problem, to me, that many women are forced to wear certain garments by their husbands (which is no simple problem)?
I think that your reaction is very unreasonable.
Edit: By the way, I mischaracterized the article in my previous post, it's not true that a quarter of Muslims are fine with the terrorist attack against Charlie Hebdo. But you acted as if the idea that 25% of Muslims (suggesting all of them) being fine with terrorism was outlandish. Did you see the protests worldwide after the massacres? Did you hear about the riots? All of those people, their reaction to the massacre was just that. Charlie Hebdo's people got massacred. Fuck Charlie Hebdo. Let's burn churches. Literally hundreds of thousands of them in the streets of various countries. Iran, Pakistan, Niger... All pissed at the people who died for drawing stuff. Is it that outlandish that some of those deeply ingrained religious values would still exist, with burning hot passion, in the hearts of Western Muslims? Is the question so fucking preposterous that it cannot be discussed?
+ Show Spoiler +I'm sure many in the muslim community in the west and other countries abroad feel targeted and that the situation is only getting worse. Then, add on the fact that you have hateful pictures drawn of our prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and you can kinda see why things go wild after.
As I said in my previous posts though, I and many others don't support such actions. I personally can't explain why people can't restrain their emotions after such obviously baitful drawings and use peaceful protests and boycotts to get across the point that this stuff is wrong. I think it goes back the idea of upbringing. It would be impossible to explain every single muslims action. Infact, it would be ridiculous for me to even try to do it. Everyone has their own upbringing with more or less emphasis on different aspects of faith (or none for some people) and there's a ton of muslims around the world (1.5+ billion).
Then you also have to explore the concept of freedom. People argue that freedom means you can do anything you want but that's not really true. Freedom to do anything also has its limit and those cartoons and many others certainly surpass that limit imo. Also, why is it surprising that hundreds of thousands of people are protesting against the drawings? In all honesty, I don't remember seeing those happening much around the time the massacre took place, only before but it goes back to my original point, that some feel that the cartoons and other acts have been targeting the muslim community for a long time now.
Please calm down, not sure why you are getting riled up in your post. As for ISIS, fuck them. It always pains me when some people lump ISIS with muslims especially when anyone whose has been following the news will realize that ISIS is not differentiating with who they kill, aka, they are killing both muslims, christians and other people indiscriminately. In other words, they are a plague on the earth and anyone who joins them deserves only death for trying to target other fellow humans beings.
As for this: And is it WRONG for me to say that it is a social problem, to me, that many women are forced to wear certain garments by their husbands (which is no simple problem)? My family, mom and dad's side, everyone chooses when to wear the head garment or not (hijab only). To be more clear, religion dictates that a women should wear it, however, the family shouldn't be forcing them to wear it. They'll have to make that decision themselves sooner or later. If they decide not to do so and I know family members who don't, the family can't force them to reconsider (or shouldn't at least since its not their decision to make). Also, while we are on that subject, just to clear any misunderstandings (incase), other garments like the niqab etc... are NOT muslim garments. I see people mix these up all the time and it irritates me to no end. I dunno how many questions I answered but hope I managed to clarify some things. + Show Spoiler +I don't believe that those cartoons surpass "freedom" or whatever that means. I can make caricatures of Jesus and all that and it's never a problem. I'm a firm believer that we can make jokes about anything.
ISIS is not lumped with Muslims but it's definitely an expression of Islamic (Shia) extremism. To act as if they were disconnected is not reasonable. Few Muslims have anything to do with ISIS and obviously a vast majority of them hate ISIS, but in the west there are these groups that do exist, and do "recruit" for ISIS. I think 5-6 teenagers (around 15-16 years), some of them girls, managed to make it to Syria's ISIS controlled areas. I hate to even think about what they'll do to those kids, if they're even still alive.
I don't understand the difference between "Muslim garments" and otherwise, all I know is that there are many men who "force" their wife and female children to wear certain clothes, namely clothes which hide the hair and the face of their women in certain cases. While it can be argued that many women make those choices by themselves, there are many, myself included, who feel like there is peer pressure. I think it's a problem, especially in those cases where the man is directly forbidding his wife to show her hair or worse, her face, in public. It's not all fun and rainbows just because some women willfully wear it after being arguably raised in a culture which promotes this kind of submissive behavior out of women.
And just to be clear, literally everything I say applies to fractions of varying sizes of the Muslim population, and I consider the problems I bring up to be of various importance. My opinion of some of those clothing as symbols of women being oppressed is a problem which cannot be adequately solved (forcing women not to wear it would be oppressive also). But certain other things and practices by certain portions of the muslim population strike me as completely out of phrase with my sense of morality. Anyway I'm off to sleep, cheers.
+ Show Spoiler +We will have to agree to disagree on the first point. I think those cartoons crossed the line of what was appropriate. I personally believe that you should not be making cartoons that mock people's faiths, beliefs etc... and I'm sure that I'm not the only one that shares that opinion. The only muslim garment that women should wear is the hijab! What the fuck. Can you even imagine a politician or public figure saying something like: "Women should wear this and cover their heads, but of course men are fine without it"?
To be fair, in many western countries women are required to cover their breasts while men aren"t, it's not really that different. I am strongly against both versions, but that's probably not the case of the average european.
|
If men had balls sprouting off their chests...
Well, if a thought like that enters one's mind, one knows the thread is lost to one.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
I had an initial frowny reaction when I read the warning reason as well. And discussion around the topic is always unhelpfully stifled, although I'm not sure I'd want to be a part of it anyway.
And yes, BigFan's concept of freedom is a long, long way from mine, and a long long way from anyone else I know.
|
On July 01 2015 18:52 SixStrings wrote: If men had balls sprouting off their chests...
Well, if a thought like that enters one's mind, one knows the thread is lost to one.
Do you realise that your identification of boobs as a sexual symbol and non-idetification of hair/neck as such is purely cultural?
|
On July 01 2015 18:04 opisska wrote: Djzapz sadly undermines his argument by some factual flaws (like ISIS were Shia extremists) Yeah that was a lapsus -_-. I was very tired and I'm more familiar with the terms in French, my first language, so I mixed them up but I know the basics. Nonetheless, I don't understand how it can be argued that it has nothing to do with Islam, to me it seems like a no true scotsman argument in a way. And while it's far disconnected from most western Muslims, they still have some supporters in our countries, influencers of sorts. He himself says that ISIS wants to exterminate Shia Muslims who they consider to be infidels, so not part of their faith the "real Islam" as far as they are concerned. How is that disconnected from Islam?
For instance, Christians from the Westboro Baptist church do some crazy things, yet they're still Christians but it's perhaps too small of a problem to be concerned about it. If Christians start bombing abortion clinics, certain people would say they weren't a "real Christian" which is bullshit but then we can start being concerned. And if it started happening on a large scale we'd think oh, maybe there's something unhealthy growing in some of those circles.
--
But yeah Big Fan and I are going to have to disagree regarding the caricatures thing. I think faith and religion are not outside of the realm of things we can discuss and mock, so long as we don't prevent people from practicing their religion. I don't think that religion is a special part of life, it's just another thing and I can make fun of a person's politics or whatever else. I think that a mature adult can make jokes about another mature adult and everyone should be able to keep their feelings in check, we're just kidding here.
As for why I decided to have most of this discussion under spoilers, it had nothing to do with mods. I was fine having this conversation with only a few people. Maybe it's a good thing seeing how I said something stupid after rambling for a few pages at night =_=.
If anyone cares about what I think and I don't know why anybody would, but in this video in spoilers at the bottom of my post, Sam Harris pretty much nails it for me. And the reaction of Ben Affleck is absolutely typical. Sam Harris explains in very sober and reasonable term that every criticism of the doctrine of Islam (regarding the treatment of women, or the existence of extremism), in is words, "gets conflated with bigotry towards Muslims as people." Ben Affleck *insantly* jumps in and proves the point. Harris didn't need to say much at all and someone instantly assumed oh, he's a racist. Harris then goes on to be extremely critical of Islam, in a way which is thought to be racist.
"Islam is the motherload of bad ideas", he says - and to me it would sound bad if it came from some stupid hick from the mountains, because you don't know what the motivations are behind something saying like that. However, Harris is an educated man, perhaps a little combative, but he's defended a neoliberal world view for a while now and from a progressive standpoint, it's true that if you're a liberal, if you're a Bernie Sanders 2016 type of guy, you probably aren't happy with the fact that Muslims want to decrease freedom of speech, many of them and the majority in some countries want the Sharia law... Saying "Islam is the motherload of bad ideas" sounds offensive as fuck, but when I compare them with my own I'm forced to agree with this. If another group of white people lived with these ideas that are so far disconnected from mine, for instance Scientologists, I could say "Scientology is the motherload of bad ideas" and no one would bat an eye because there's no latent possibility that I'm a bigoted piece of shit here, no one gives a fuck about Scientologists. So to me there's a disconnect here. So even if you disagree with freedom of expression, you disagree with liberal and progressive ideals, well I argue that we should be able to talk about it.
Lastly, Affleck's visceral dismissal of Harris's concerns stems largely from the fact that unfortunately, most people who bring up the questions don't want to discuss the subject. They're hateful. And so many people have lost (or never really had) the ability to see the difference between an asshole and someone who's political ideas differ greatly from those conveyed by Islam. Fuck, Harris mentions in the video, 78% of British Muslims wanted the Danish cartoonist guy who got assassinated to be prosecuted. 78%! The statistics for the stupid shit southern US states do are not that damning to my eye. The rate of female genital mutilation for reasons that we're too aware of... Can we not talk about these, can we not be concerned? And when Harris says that there is this large group of Muslims who don't stand for this shit and these Muslims must be defended from the rest, Affleck retorts by saying that Harris is essentially throwing them all under the bus, completely ignoring what Harris said. He's pointing at the various groups of Muslims that are problematic and saying these are bad, these other ones are good, and yet Affleck is completely closed off, doesn't hear anything, refuses to exercise critical thought.
And my two main points were tackled by Harris in the video. My concerns are that -The jihadists and the Islamists represent a larger proportion of the Muslim population than we really think. He says 20%, even if it's 5 or 10% I think it's not negligible. And I'm sure it's not that many in the West but nonetheless it's a problem -Outside of those people, you have the conservative muslims, who's politics don't mesh at all with mine. I think it makes sense for me to criticize those in the same way that I criticize other conservatives in my own country, and in other western countries.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On July 01 2015 19:09 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2015 18:52 SixStrings wrote: If men had balls sprouting off their chests...
Well, if a thought like that enters one's mind, one knows the thread is lost to one. Do you realise that your identification of boobs as a sexual symbol and non-idetification of hair/neck as such is purely cultural? well, i assume there must be a thing in that men have necks and yet (most) men don't have boobs.
|
so this is the thread where you can bash islam baselessly without getting warned?
|
On July 01 2015 22:26 sAsImre wrote: so this is the thread where you can bash islam baselessly without getting warned? Please tell me where I bashed anything O_o. I criticized, I said that some of the morals of certain groups of Muslims clash with my ideals, I've brought up some of the practices that I don't like.
What unreasonable thing have I said? BigFan is a Muslim and we discussed briefly last night in a civil manner. He agreed to disagree with me on some points, and I think if he reads my previous post he'll disagree some more and we'll talk about it. I don't think anyone can read what I said and think I'm bashing Islam, otherwise I've also bashed republicans and I've bashed anti-gay marriage people and I've bashed pro-lifers and I've bashed the government of Quebec and the supporters of some political parties and I've bashed a fuckload of people. And now I decided to "bash" certain segments of Islamic doctine just like I would "bash" any other conflicting viewpoint.
So why is it suddenly bashing. -_-
Edit: This is my last post here, unless BigFan cares to continue it (well, I'll try to cut it anyway). For everybody else, PM me if you want to discuss this (but I've said everything I wanted to say). If you think I'm an asshole, well so be it. I think I was reasonable, and I'm not opposed to Islam as a faith, and I'm happy to live in a country with diversity, with different people of different ethnic backgrounds and different faiths. But I will fight against ideals who are different from mine, and I refuse to be told that certain discussions cannot take place. I like to talk about these things, it allows me to sometimes adjust or change my positions altogether, it allows me to learn about stuff, and it makes me really sad that some people want to prevent it from happening.
Cheers.
|
On July 01 2015 02:35 The_Templar wrote: He's asking why books that are aimed towards or against a group of people in an undesirable way are allowed when the same kind of symbols aren't. By comparing the Qu'ran to Mein Kampf, he's putting both in a very negative context and basically saying that Islams are literally like hitler.
Why is he not allowed to express the opinion that islam is on the same level of evil as national socialism?
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 01 2015 18:04 opisska wrote: One thing irks me really: BigFan, I am sorry, but you just do not understand the concept of freedom in the same way in which people like me see it. Your idea of freedom is so disconnected from mine that one of us should probably start using a different word. In my world, there is absolutely zero question about that the idea that one's freedom should be limited by others' feelings is completely ridiculous. You should think about that. Figured that not many on here would have similar thoughts on my idea of freedom so not really surprised. I've already given it enough thought on my part so my original point sticks, sorry mate but that's how I see things. We obviously have different thoughts on it but I value people's feelings and emotions and feel that they are important if we are to create a better world tommorrow or the next day. Either way, I wasn't trying to sway anyone with any of my points so I'm fine with us disagreeing 
@Djzapz yes, we'll have to agree to disagree on the caricatures. I'm sure many muslims see the initial ones being done out of malice more than anything else. To see our prophet Mohammed (pbuh) degraded in such a way when his reputation among both muslims and non-muslims has been stellar is nothing short of hurtful and uncalled for. You call it as making a joke or poking fun among mature adults but doubt many muslims will agree with you on that.
As for the rest, only thing that I can tell you is that the context and history are really important to understanding muslims. You brought up some good points in the argument, but since I frequent a lot of forums, new sites etc... and have read similar concerns before, none of them are really surprising to me. Muslim culture is also different from other cultures and I'm sure that can play a role in some of your dislikes. We had a good conversation and I'm sure we'll have another at some point in time.
No, I don't think you're an asshole lol. I think you're just interested in learning more which I see as a good thing. I'm only disappointed that I couldn't provide you with better detailed answers to satisfy your curiosity. Till next time!
|
Cheers
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
I just want to say, maybe this is a strong statement. But I think that the religion of islam is ok and certainly better than the nazi party. In general it isn't worth getting in fights with moderators.
|
he's pretty blatantly saying that all three things are symbols of hatred
why is that even being debated
|
On July 02 2015 05:13 QuanticHawk wrote: he's pretty blatantly saying that all three things are symbols of hatred
why is that even being debated
That shouldn't be ban or warn worthy He's criticizing an ideology, not a race.
|
No he's not lol
criticism would be if he said the qu'ran symbolizes hate and gave specific examples of that.
he said it symbolizes hate just like the confederate flag and mein kampf, that's it. one is criticism, the other is stupid inflammatory shit
|
This is a pretty topical question in modern media, isn't it? I was always staunchly opposed to censorship in any way, but recently I've been reconsidering it. I've made the arguments myself, largely based on what John Stuart Mill has to say about the value of the minority and the danger of a dogma even if its true, etc... etc... but really, when some young know-it-all says stupid racist shit in self-righteous way, is that really contributing to social dialogue? I'm not sure where I stand, but I'm certainly having my doubts. Political critiques should be protected obviously, and philosophy should be openly discussed, and I get the slippery-slopes argument and Milton's point about the impossibility of finding trustworthy censors, but the media and speech today isn't what it used to be - it's something much expanded... I don't know, I'm genuinely confused about where I stand on this sort of issue.
|
On July 02 2015 21:12 QuanticHawk wrote: No he's not lol
criticism would be if he said the qu'ran symbolizes hate and gave specific examples of that.
he said it symbolizes hate just like the confederate flag and mein kampf, that's it. one is criticism, the other is stupid inflammatory shit
If we assume that national socialism is an ideology which he holds in low regard (a safe assumption), then putting other ideologies in the same category is a criticism of that ideology. It's that simple.
I think that he should be allowed to criticize any ideology. He wasn't trolling, nor being racist. He was expressing his views on islam.
|
On July 02 2015 21:39 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 21:12 QuanticHawk wrote: No he's not lol
criticism would be if he said the qu'ran symbolizes hate and gave specific examples of that.
he said it symbolizes hate just like the confederate flag and mein kampf, that's it. one is criticism, the other is stupid inflammatory shit If we assume that national socialism is an ideology which he holds in low regard (a safe assumption), then putting other ideologies in the same category is a criticism of that ideology. It's that simple. I think that he should be allowed to criticize any ideology. He wasn't trolling, nor being racist. He was expressing his views on islam. The problem with that undertaking is that it is far too immature to stand on its own two feet; it simply doesn't make sense to compare ideologies in that way, particularly when one takes into account the historical differentiation at play in the comparison. Holding an ideology in low regard is not in itself an actionable basis for a comparison with another ideology that is objectively "bad"; in fact, when that sort of reasoning underpins an argument, it almost always indicates a lack of merit in the argument itself. In the words of Gilbert Ryle, you'd be committing the worst kind of category-mistake, one that turns on the vulgarities of bias instead of genuine curiosity or understanding.
Furthermore, statements made in public are generally conferred a greater degree of tolerance when said statements themselves show at least a modicum of it. Accordingly, it isn't exactly hard to see why lazily lumping Islam as a general concept together with things like Nazism would run into resistance, resistance that is quite justified to be frank. It shows a basic misunderstanding as to the fact that the vast, vast majority of muslims in the world today are entirely peaceful, humble, and otherwise "good" people who have not warranted such a gross comparison of their faith with the ideology of National Socialism. I mean, come on, we have yet another category error at work here. Nazism is a socio-political ideology that is tied to a very particular period of time and belief in human history. Islam, and Christianity for that matter, are far more vast, commingled with the other belief and motivation systems at work in human society, and significantly less consistent with themselves throughout history. For hundreds of years, the teachings of Islam and Christianity have shaped practically the entire worldview of huge numbers of the world's historical population.
In pulling it all together, comparing islam with nazism without an incredible degree of nuance and space given is an obtuse, ahistorical, offensive, and downright stupid thing to do. Ya just shouldn't do it.
|
farva entire nails why it was a stupid ass comment, especially the last sentence. a comment like that deserves a very thorough explanation, not a drive by one liner
|
On July 02 2015 22:54 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 21:39 vOdToasT wrote:On July 02 2015 21:12 QuanticHawk wrote: No he's not lol
criticism would be if he said the qu'ran symbolizes hate and gave specific examples of that.
he said it symbolizes hate just like the confederate flag and mein kampf, that's it. one is criticism, the other is stupid inflammatory shit If we assume that national socialism is an ideology which he holds in low regard (a safe assumption), then putting other ideologies in the same category is a criticism of that ideology. It's that simple. I think that he should be allowed to criticize any ideology. He wasn't trolling, nor being racist. He was expressing his views on islam. In pulling it all together, comparing islam with nazism without an incredible degree of nuance and space given is an obtuse, ahistorical, offensive, and downright stupid thing to do. Ya just shouldn't do it.
Right, except I never compared Nazism to Islam. I compared to the Quran to Mein Kampf.
There's a great deal of difference between comparing two books and comparing two ideologies, especially since I was only comparing the books in one aspect: Both incite the killing of jews.
|
On July 03 2015 03:52 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 22:54 farvacola wrote:On July 02 2015 21:39 vOdToasT wrote:On July 02 2015 21:12 QuanticHawk wrote: No he's not lol
criticism would be if he said the qu'ran symbolizes hate and gave specific examples of that.
he said it symbolizes hate just like the confederate flag and mein kampf, that's it. one is criticism, the other is stupid inflammatory shit If we assume that national socialism is an ideology which he holds in low regard (a safe assumption), then putting other ideologies in the same category is a criticism of that ideology. It's that simple. I think that he should be allowed to criticize any ideology. He wasn't trolling, nor being racist. He was expressing his views on islam. In pulling it all together, comparing islam with nazism without an incredible degree of nuance and space given is an obtuse, ahistorical, offensive, and downright stupid thing to do. Ya just shouldn't do it. Right, except I never compared Nazism to Islam. I compared to the Quran to Mein Kampf. There's a great deal of difference between comparing two books and comparing two ideologies, especially since I was only comparing the books in one aspect: Both incite the killing of jews. But you are comparing the two. The Quran is the holy text of Muslims, and Mein Kampf is the personal philosophy and beliefs (or whatever you call it) of the founder, ruler, and champion of Nazism. They are not just books. You can't call them "books" when what they represent is obviously much more, and you are fully aware of this. You're that guy probably tells people at a party, "I'm not calling YOU stupid, it's just that what you are saying is stupid."
|
On July 03 2015 03:52 SixStrings wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2015 22:54 farvacola wrote:On July 02 2015 21:39 vOdToasT wrote:On July 02 2015 21:12 QuanticHawk wrote: No he's not lol
criticism would be if he said the qu'ran symbolizes hate and gave specific examples of that.
he said it symbolizes hate just like the confederate flag and mein kampf, that's it. one is criticism, the other is stupid inflammatory shit If we assume that national socialism is an ideology which he holds in low regard (a safe assumption), then putting other ideologies in the same category is a criticism of that ideology. It's that simple. I think that he should be allowed to criticize any ideology. He wasn't trolling, nor being racist. He was expressing his views on islam. In pulling it all together, comparing islam with nazism without an incredible degree of nuance and space given is an obtuse, ahistorical, offensive, and downright stupid thing to do. Ya just shouldn't do it. Right, except I never compared Nazism to Islam. I compared to the Quran to Mein Kampf. There's a great deal of difference between comparing two books and comparing two ideologies, especially since I was only comparing the books in one aspect: Both incite the killing of jews.
You can't criticize Islam. All you'll get is people blinded by political correctness jumping through hoops to tell you that you need to shut up and respect Islam - or - crazy right-wing bigots that you don't ever want to be associated with endorsing you.
|
On July 04 2015 13:10 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 03:52 SixStrings wrote:On July 02 2015 22:54 farvacola wrote:On July 02 2015 21:39 vOdToasT wrote:On July 02 2015 21:12 QuanticHawk wrote: No he's not lol
criticism would be if he said the qu'ran symbolizes hate and gave specific examples of that.
he said it symbolizes hate just like the confederate flag and mein kampf, that's it. one is criticism, the other is stupid inflammatory shit If we assume that national socialism is an ideology which he holds in low regard (a safe assumption), then putting other ideologies in the same category is a criticism of that ideology. It's that simple. I think that he should be allowed to criticize any ideology. He wasn't trolling, nor being racist. He was expressing his views on islam. In pulling it all together, comparing islam with nazism without an incredible degree of nuance and space given is an obtuse, ahistorical, offensive, and downright stupid thing to do. Ya just shouldn't do it. Right, except I never compared Nazism to Islam. I compared to the Quran to Mein Kampf. There's a great deal of difference between comparing two books and comparing two ideologies, especially since I was only comparing the books in one aspect: Both incite the killing of jews. You can't criticize Islam. All you'll get is people blinded by political correctness jumping through hoops to tell you that you need to shut up and respect Islam - or - crazy right-wing bigots that you don't ever want to be associated with endorsing you. You can criticize Islam all you want (or at least should be able to), but what you can't do is be disingenuous about it and compare the key text to Nazi propaganda and deny your implication. It would be the same if I said, "the bible is hate-filled garbage" but when challenged, I insisted I was not saying anything negative about Christians or Christianity.
|
On July 04 2015 13:19 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2015 13:10 ninazerg wrote:On July 03 2015 03:52 SixStrings wrote:On July 02 2015 22:54 farvacola wrote:On July 02 2015 21:39 vOdToasT wrote:On July 02 2015 21:12 QuanticHawk wrote: No he's not lol
criticism would be if he said the qu'ran symbolizes hate and gave specific examples of that.
he said it symbolizes hate just like the confederate flag and mein kampf, that's it. one is criticism, the other is stupid inflammatory shit If we assume that national socialism is an ideology which he holds in low regard (a safe assumption), then putting other ideologies in the same category is a criticism of that ideology. It's that simple. I think that he should be allowed to criticize any ideology. He wasn't trolling, nor being racist. He was expressing his views on islam. In pulling it all together, comparing islam with nazism without an incredible degree of nuance and space given is an obtuse, ahistorical, offensive, and downright stupid thing to do. Ya just shouldn't do it. Right, except I never compared Nazism to Islam. I compared to the Quran to Mein Kampf. There's a great deal of difference between comparing two books and comparing two ideologies, especially since I was only comparing the books in one aspect: Both incite the killing of jews. You can't criticize Islam. All you'll get is people blinded by political correctness jumping through hoops to tell you that you need to shut up and respect Islam - or - crazy right-wing bigots that you don't ever want to be associated with endorsing you. You can criticize Islam all you want (or at least should be able to), but what you can't do is be disingenuous about it and compare the key text to Nazi propaganda and deny your implication. It would be the same if I said, "the bible is hate-filled garbage" but when challenged, I insisted I was not saying anything negative about Christians or Christianity.
That's the kicker, isn't it? This whole 'religious tolerance' thing is basically even a thing because Christians would look like huge hypocrites condemning Islam openly, wouldn't they? Put that aside and suddenly, you can see that people are writing some crazy books, other people are structuring their lives around these books, and some people are killing because they are defending what they believe to be an attack on their very livelihood.
|
On July 04 2015 15:32 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2015 13:19 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On July 04 2015 13:10 ninazerg wrote:On July 03 2015 03:52 SixStrings wrote:On July 02 2015 22:54 farvacola wrote:On July 02 2015 21:39 vOdToasT wrote:On July 02 2015 21:12 QuanticHawk wrote: No he's not lol
criticism would be if he said the qu'ran symbolizes hate and gave specific examples of that.
he said it symbolizes hate just like the confederate flag and mein kampf, that's it. one is criticism, the other is stupid inflammatory shit If we assume that national socialism is an ideology which he holds in low regard (a safe assumption), then putting other ideologies in the same category is a criticism of that ideology. It's that simple. I think that he should be allowed to criticize any ideology. He wasn't trolling, nor being racist. He was expressing his views on islam. In pulling it all together, comparing islam with nazism without an incredible degree of nuance and space given is an obtuse, ahistorical, offensive, and downright stupid thing to do. Ya just shouldn't do it. Right, except I never compared Nazism to Islam. I compared to the Quran to Mein Kampf. There's a great deal of difference between comparing two books and comparing two ideologies, especially since I was only comparing the books in one aspect: Both incite the killing of jews. You can't criticize Islam. All you'll get is people blinded by political correctness jumping through hoops to tell you that you need to shut up and respect Islam - or - crazy right-wing bigots that you don't ever want to be associated with endorsing you. You can criticize Islam all you want (or at least should be able to), but what you can't do is be disingenuous about it and compare the key text to Nazi propaganda and deny your implication. It would be the same if I said, "the bible is hate-filled garbage" but when challenged, I insisted I was not saying anything negative about Christians or Christianity. That's the kicker, isn't it? This whole 'religious tolerance' thing is basically even a thing because Christians would look like huge hypocrites condemning Islam openly, wouldn't they? Put that aside and suddenly, you can see that people are writing some crazy books, other people are structuring their lives around these books, and some people are killing because they are defending what they believe to be an attack on their very livelihood. So then you should be calling out SixStrings for being soft and not just owning up to his opinion.
|
wow, I almost replied with an arguement. Good trolling by SixStrings, okayish moderation.
|
It's so hard being PC, oh my gerd, my armor isn't shiny enough.
|
On July 04 2015 13:10 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2015 03:52 SixStrings wrote:On July 02 2015 22:54 farvacola wrote:On July 02 2015 21:39 vOdToasT wrote:On July 02 2015 21:12 QuanticHawk wrote: No he's not lol
criticism would be if he said the qu'ran symbolizes hate and gave specific examples of that.
he said it symbolizes hate just like the confederate flag and mein kampf, that's it. one is criticism, the other is stupid inflammatory shit If we assume that national socialism is an ideology which he holds in low regard (a safe assumption), then putting other ideologies in the same category is a criticism of that ideology. It's that simple. I think that he should be allowed to criticize any ideology. He wasn't trolling, nor being racist. He was expressing his views on islam. In pulling it all together, comparing islam with nazism without an incredible degree of nuance and space given is an obtuse, ahistorical, offensive, and downright stupid thing to do. Ya just shouldn't do it. Right, except I never compared Nazism to Islam. I compared to the Quran to Mein Kampf. There's a great deal of difference between comparing two books and comparing two ideologies, especially since I was only comparing the books in one aspect: Both incite the killing of jews. You can't criticize Islam. All you'll get is people blinded by political correctness jumping through hoops to tell you that you need to shut up and respect Islam - or - crazy right-wing bigots that you don't ever want to be associated with endorsing you.
it's not that religion is above criticism. it's that comparing the quaran with mein kampf and saying they are both hate books without offering any kind of explanation or evidence for such a statement is lazy, stupid, and inflammtory. so basically par for the course for sixstrings.
even just giving a single example of how the quran inspires hate, even if its a shitty interpretation, would be an actual critism.
|
Sorry if this looks like a bump.. on a blog of all places. I agree with the "it isn't actionable in the manner it was sanctioned" part of oppiska's original post.
On July 01 2015 02:35 The_Templar wrote: He's asking why books that are aimed towards or against a group of people in an undesirable way are allowed when the same kind of symbols aren't. By comparing the Qu'ran to Mein Kampf, he's putting both in a very negative context and basically saying that Islams are literally like hitler. Is he? Or is it your reading (ie most people's reading into it)? Granted I would have warned as soon as it was posted! We have bots for that! The program reads every posts and concludes that there are flagged words intersection and hence: a public warning is issued saying : 1/this post is currently under scrutiny, if user does not make her/his/its mind more comprehensively understood, his standalone post will be sanctioned soon. 2/live moderation in progress, a fleet of moderator appears, bob's your uncle.. 3/stays open as is, temp ban or warning or ... etc #welcome to the twenty first century grid I am just sure that the algorithms' law of probabilities will get you every time. [#insert veiled sarcasm anytime/here if applicable#]
On topic: I feel we owe it to ourselves as a community to help people who don't realize that they are read, and what they wrote might be considered offensive or objectionable. Accountability is essential.
On July 05 2015 02:37 QuanticHawk wrote:... even just giving a single example of how the quran inspires hate, even if its a shitty interpretation, would be an actual criticism. Sort of my point.
|
|
|
|