|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 19 2022 22:34 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2022 21:42 Godwrath wrote:
So what is going to be Moohdoo, ban hateful speech or not. The comparison between someone burning animes to the burning of a book which some people deem sacred is so idiotic that you should be ashamed.
That doesn't justify the looting, but the outrage itself, if It isn't properly punished, is more than comprensible.
No, we have freedom of speech in Sweden. That includes sacrilege. I remember an art installation depicting Jesus in various explicit homoerotic situations. No burning of cars that time. The problem is not the provocation. The problem is that we have entire suburbs now that are more or less controlled by criminal clans consisting of first and second generation immigrants. Ambulances need police escort and even the regular mail service has stopped serving some of these areas. That's how bad it is.
I've heard similar claims in numerous European countries, but are there any actual sources to back this up? All my interactions with immigrants in places like Amsterdam, Brussels, and Paris, especially Muslim immigrants, as an out trans woman have always been very respectful and nice
|
On April 19 2022 23:06 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2022 22:34 Elroi wrote:On April 19 2022 21:42 Godwrath wrote:
So what is going to be Moohdoo, ban hateful speech or not. The comparison between someone burning animes to the burning of a book which some people deem sacred is so idiotic that you should be ashamed.
That doesn't justify the looting, but the outrage itself, if It isn't properly punished, is more than comprensible.
No, we have freedom of speech in Sweden. That includes sacrilege. I remember an art installation depicting Jesus in various explicit homoerotic situations. No burning of cars that time. The problem is not the provocation. The problem is that we have entire suburbs now that are more or less controlled by criminal clans consisting of first and second generation immigrants. Ambulances need police escort and even the regular mail service has stopped serving some of these areas. That's how bad it is. I've heard similar claims in numerous European countries, but are there any actual sources to back this up? All my interactions with immigrants in places like Amsterdam, Brussels, and Paris, especially Muslim immigrants, as an out trans woman have always been very respectful and nice
What sources are you looking for? A lot og it will be in Swedish or Danish.
Also how often does your interaction occur in the worst ghetto of any given city? E.g. did you walk into Rosenborg and said: Hello I am trans, what do you think of it? I mean obviously you didn't - your anecdotes are highly positive and I am so happy to hear it - they are probably reflective of upwards of 90% of the sub-population. The issue is with the minority and I find it highly plausible you simply dont interact with them. That goes for most if they are not doing it in some work capacity (police, healthcare, social worker).
|
Same shit's been happening in Norway, altough with less violent counterreactions than in Sweden. The recipe is the same - racist far-right shitheads exploit our culture for and respect of free speech and desire for open discourse by hosting "appeals" or political markings, aimed precisely at agitating the muslim population. Since the antidemonstrants frequently end up getting pissed by the targeted hate from the appealants, the demonstration hosts get police protection - which gets caught in the crossfire.
Result is far-right talking points - "look at violent muslims" and "they hate free speech" and "poor injured cops" - all which people who are not really paying attetion to the situation, swallow eagerly. After all, there was a demonstration, sure, ugly things were said sure, but that doesnt excuse violence - and especially not against public servants. Or so goes the general logic.
Its all stupid. The far-right agitators are deliberately using the legal and cultural framework to target and harass a minority with little governal and political representation. They have no way of stopping the harassment - the only recourse is dealing with the shit yourself. Or so goes the general reaction.
Id want western legalese to admit its legal, moral and cultural institutions to be flawed, and such behaviour against a "defenseless" minority to be unacceptable. Otherwise, the provocations will keep using the western legal institutions to shield their hate.
Jail anyone involved with violence. Then combine and apply the combined sentencing from the violence on the provocateurs.
The signal needs to be "if you start shit, youre responsible for the consequences."
|
On April 19 2022 21:42 Godwrath wrote:
So what is going to be Moohdoo, ban hateful speech or not. The comparison between someone burning animes to the burning of a book which some people deem sacred is so idiotic that you should be ashamed.
That doesn't justify the looting, but the outrage itself, if It isn't properly punished, is more than comprensible.
The point is that a book being considered too sacred to burn is extremely culturally regressive and does not belong in modern society. We can't punish other people for burning books, regardless of how much someone particularly likes the stories contained within it. We do not have any reason to treat a stack of Dragonball manga any differently than a stack of Qurans. Treating them equivalently is a mark of a modern society and Sweden should be proud that they have kept up that level of dignity for so long. They should prioritize keeping it.
On April 20 2022 00:00 plated.rawr wrote:
The signal needs to be "if you start shit, youre responsible for the consequences."
If a woman calls her husband a worthless shit head who doesn't make enough money and can't support their family, should she not complain if he hits her? When are you saying violence is an appropriate reaction to speech?
|
Show nested quote +On April 20 2022 00:00 plated.rawr wrote:
The signal needs to be "if you start shit, youre responsible for the consequences." If a woman calls her husband a worthless shit head who doesn't make enough money and can't support their family, should she not complain if he hits her? When are you saying violence is an appropriate reaction to speech?
Of course there's nuances. I typed brevily because typing on mobile while on the light rail is a pain in the dick. This is also in context of power dispairy - "The far-right agitators are deliberately using the legal and cultural framework to target and harass a minority with little governal and political representation. They have no way of stopping the harassment - the only recourse is dealing with the shit yourself."
In general, I'd say the strong part in any conflict bears the primary responsibility if they didnt act to deescalate the situation. In your example, the breadwinning husband backhanding his mouthy wife is still the actor in power using his position to oppress someone weaker. A more representative situation to the far-right agitators riling up muslim citizens would be if the breadwinning husband kept harassing his wife over time, telling her that she's worthless, poking fun at her, giving her shit and being an all-round dick. If she one day snapped and punched him, he'd be more at fault for what happened there than she were, even if she was the one who resorted to violence.
Far-right dickheads using the legal and cultural framework of western nations to propagate hate against a minority is like that - a person protected by strong institutions using it to harass a weaker party. That the antidemonstrants, bereft of any other recourse against the agitators and against the supporting system, then, turn to violence, I understsand and sympathise with.
Violence does not start with who throws the first punch. I truly dislike the separation between physical violence and other transgressions as what's acceptable and what's not. Its an easy separation for sure, but it doesnt help in showing where the conflict started.
|
Northern Ireland23897 Posts
On April 20 2022 00:04 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2022 21:42 Godwrath wrote:
So what is going to be Moohdoo, ban hateful speech or not. The comparison between someone burning animes to the burning of a book which some people deem sacred is so idiotic that you should be ashamed.
That doesn't justify the looting, but the outrage itself, if It isn't properly punished, is more than comprensible.
The point is that a book being considered too sacred to burn is extremely culturally regressive and does not belong in modern society. We can't punish other people for burning books, regardless of how much someone particularly likes the stories contained within it. We do not have any reason to treat a stack of Dragonball manga any differently than a stack of Qurans. Treating them equivalently is a mark of a modern society and Sweden should be proud that they have kept up that level of dignity for so long. They should prioritize keeping it. Show nested quote +On April 20 2022 00:00 plated.rawr wrote:
The signal needs to be "if you start shit, youre responsible for the consequences." If a woman calls her husband a worthless shit head who doesn't make enough money and can't support their family, should she not complain if he hits her? When are you saying violence is an appropriate reaction to speech?
The difference being what I think the Plated One expressed pretty well.
It’s why I drew a distinction between a Charlie Hebdo cartoon and far right provocateurs for whom disliking Muslim people is the motivating factor, and burning Qur’ans merely a mechanism to expressing it.
It’s not especially different from other forms of rhetoric. We’ve no issue condemning anti-Hispanic, anti-Chinese rhetoric on these forums solely because it smells like it.
It’s not some noble display of free speech values, it’s the far right using them as a rod to draw the lightning away from their intent, and simultaneously served as useful camouflage to have secularists and people genuinely valuing free speech to form alliances, however temporarily.
It’s not especially different from people protesting/rioting over police brutality, it’s not about one incident necessarily, but an incident that resonates in a multi-variate fashion to different people.
I don’t know enough about the Swedish Muslim experience, especially for those relocated from Syria to comment on it. I would assume such an outburst is as much a straw that breaks the camels back scenario as them simply rioting singularly due to book burning. I do not know this.
And yes, I agree with you that if it’s solely the case, then these people aren’t compatible with a pluralist society.
|
I think both of you are letting your disdain for far right dickheads distort your view of what is being fought and what is being protected. People can defend the right thing for the wrong reasons. If this far right dick head was just doing it to financially profit, it would not make him any less on the more ethical side of the debate whether any book can ever be considered sacred enough to justify violence.
It feels like both of you are ignoring the fact that this situation is becoming a referendum on whether sacrilege should be punishable or not.
I am Peruvian and there is nothing that someone could do to disrespect Peruvian culture that would make me burn cars. That is a reflection of the fact that my culture is elevated and more ethical when compared to the people burning cars. When someone is deciding "who should I let immigrate into my country?", the question of whether they have a car-burning trigger is apparently something worth considering.
Fundamentally, it feels like neither of you are paying proper respect for the fact that car burning as a response to sacrilege is something that really should be 0% tolerated and no one who thinks that's appropriate should be allowed into the country. This guy can be right for the wrong reasons and still be right.
I don't think Quran burning can be considered a form of violence. I reject the idea that Quran burning can be considered throwing the first punch in any ethical context. A core component of the values Sweden defends is that Quran burning is not throwing the first punch.
|
The point is that someone acting from a position of power exploiting the institutions of power to harass a minority that cannot defend itself against said harassment. This is a flaw of the institutions being used, and must be remedied.
This is not about free speech, unquestionable religion or unbreakable taboos. The quran is just an easy-to-use tool to cause agitation. Anything else would be used if it was more effective in provoking the target of hatred. I personally believe that nothing is sacred or above being critiqued, questioned or made fun of. That said, I also believe in personal responsibility for any words and actions you utter, with the consequence of responsibility scaling with relative power to those your words and actions affect.
|
On April 19 2022 22:28 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2022 21:42 Godwrath wrote:
So what is going to be Moohdoo, ban hateful speech or not. The comparison between someone burning animes to the burning of a book which some people deem sacred is so idiotic that you should be ashamed.
That doesn't justify the looting, but the outrage itself, if It isn't properly punished, is more than comprensible.
There is no law against burning the quran, so how do you want it punished? Punished by who? The comparison works perfectly fine. They can think the book is sacred and at the same time act reasonably when some far-right nutcase burns a copy. No need to start a riot over it and throw molotov coctails in public transport.
I see, it wasn't clear enough. You also don't fucking need to burn a book to make a point. The comparison is shit because you are ignoring what being sacred for someone means. Anime is not sacred for a segment of your population, neither defines to such level their lifestyle and morals. I didn't expect to even have to go in there, but you never know.
Nevertheless thank you Plated for saying what i was trying to convey but way more eloquently. Because it is not about burning a book, it's about why they burn a book.
|
On April 20 2022 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:
I think both of you are letting your disdain for far right dickheads distort your view of what is being fought and what is being protected. People can defend the right thing for the wrong reasons. If this far right dick head was just doing it to financially profit, it would not make him any less on the more ethical side of the debate whether any book can ever be considered sacred enough to justify violence.
It feels like both of you are ignoring the fact that this situation is becoming a referendum on whether sacrilege should be punishable or not.
I am Peruvian and there is nothing that someone could do to disrespect Peruvian culture that would make me burn cars. That is a reflection of the fact that my culture is elevated and more ethical when compared to the people burning cars. When someone is deciding "who should I let immigrate into my country?", the question of whether they have a car-burning trigger is apparently something worth considering.
Fundamentally, it feels like neither of you are paying proper respect for the fact that car burning as a response to sacrilege is something that really should be 0% tolerated and no one who thinks that's appropriate should be allowed into the country. This guy can be right for the wrong reasons and still be right.
I don't think Quran burning can be considered a form of violence. I reject the idea that Quran burning can be considered throwing the first punch in any ethical context. A core component of the values Sweden defends is that Quran burning is not throwing the first punch.
Agreed. People doing a thing just to rile someone up are dickheads, no question there.
But people who start burning cars because someone did a thing that upsets their cultural sensibilities, but which doesn't really have any real-world effect onto them, are even more problematic.
I am German, and i really like our constitution. I think it protects some very important values. If someone started buying books of the Grundgesetz and burn them, I'd think that they are an idiot and a dickhead. I would not start rioting.
A very important part of civilized life is accepting that people may do stuff that you think is dickish, and you just have to accept that as long it doesn't actively impacts you. You don't get to dictate how other people deal with their stuff. You have a right to demand that your copies of a book don't get burned. You don't have a right to demand that no copies of a book get burned. Just because you consider something holy does not mean you get to demand that everyone else thinks the same.
It is also tactically stupid. The best way to dig the water from under the far-right assholes who try to further their agenda by showing your violence is to prove them wrong. Let them have their stupid book-burning and either ignore it or have a peaceful counter-protest. Show that you are more civilized then them. That way, they look like idiots. If you react violent, it starts to look as if they have a point to a lot of people.
|
On April 20 2022 01:42 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2022 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:
I think both of you are letting your disdain for far right dickheads distort your view of what is being fought and what is being protected. People can defend the right thing for the wrong reasons. If this far right dick head was just doing it to financially profit, it would not make him any less on the more ethical side of the debate whether any book can ever be considered sacred enough to justify violence.
It feels like both of you are ignoring the fact that this situation is becoming a referendum on whether sacrilege should be punishable or not.
I am Peruvian and there is nothing that someone could do to disrespect Peruvian culture that would make me burn cars. That is a reflection of the fact that my culture is elevated and more ethical when compared to the people burning cars. When someone is deciding "who should I let immigrate into my country?", the question of whether they have a car-burning trigger is apparently something worth considering.
Fundamentally, it feels like neither of you are paying proper respect for the fact that car burning as a response to sacrilege is something that really should be 0% tolerated and no one who thinks that's appropriate should be allowed into the country. This guy can be right for the wrong reasons and still be right.
I don't think Quran burning can be considered a form of violence. I reject the idea that Quran burning can be considered throwing the first punch in any ethical context. A core component of the values Sweden defends is that Quran burning is not throwing the first punch. Agreed. People doing a thing just to rile someone up are dickheads, no question there. But people who start burning cars because someone did a thing that upsets their cultural sensibilities, but which doesn't really have any real-world effect onto them, are even more problematic. I am German, and i really like our constitution. I think it protects some very important values. If someone started buying books of the Grundgesetz and burn them, I'd think that they are an idiot and a dickhead. I would not start rioting. A very important part of civilized life is accepting that people may do stuff that you think is dickish, and you just have to accept that as long it doesn't actively impacts you. You don't get to dictate how other people deal with their stuff. You have a right to demand that your copies of a book don't get burned. You don't have a right to demand that no copies of a book get burned. Just because you consider something holy does not mean you get to demand that everyone else thinks the same. It is also tactically stupid. The best way to dig the water from under the far-right assholes who try to further their agenda by showing your violence is to prove them wrong. Let them have their stupid book-burning and either ignore it or have a peaceful counter-protest. Show that you are more civilized then them. That way, they look like idiots. If you react violent, it starts to look as if they have a point to a lot of people.
You like the Grundgesetz, but how about the Strafgesetzbuch?
In Germany these kinds of Quran burnings are illegal and would lead to prison sentences...
In Germany, religious defamation is covered by Article 166 of the Strafgesetzbuch, the German criminal law. If a deed is capable of disturbing the public peace, defamation is actionable. The article reads as follows:[51]
§ 166 Defamation of religious denominations, religious societies and World view associations
(1) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, the substance of the religious or world view conviction of others, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to three years.
(2) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, a church established in Germany or other religious society or world view association, or their institutions or customs, shall be punished likewise.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law
The intent to disturb public peace is clearly given here, so there wouldn't be a long discussion here...
|
On April 20 2022 01:49 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2022 01:42 Simberto wrote:On April 20 2022 00:58 Mohdoo wrote:
I think both of you are letting your disdain for far right dickheads distort your view of what is being fought and what is being protected. People can defend the right thing for the wrong reasons. If this far right dick head was just doing it to financially profit, it would not make him any less on the more ethical side of the debate whether any book can ever be considered sacred enough to justify violence.
It feels like both of you are ignoring the fact that this situation is becoming a referendum on whether sacrilege should be punishable or not.
I am Peruvian and there is nothing that someone could do to disrespect Peruvian culture that would make me burn cars. That is a reflection of the fact that my culture is elevated and more ethical when compared to the people burning cars. When someone is deciding "who should I let immigrate into my country?", the question of whether they have a car-burning trigger is apparently something worth considering.
Fundamentally, it feels like neither of you are paying proper respect for the fact that car burning as a response to sacrilege is something that really should be 0% tolerated and no one who thinks that's appropriate should be allowed into the country. This guy can be right for the wrong reasons and still be right.
I don't think Quran burning can be considered a form of violence. I reject the idea that Quran burning can be considered throwing the first punch in any ethical context. A core component of the values Sweden defends is that Quran burning is not throwing the first punch. Agreed. People doing a thing just to rile someone up are dickheads, no question there. But people who start burning cars because someone did a thing that upsets their cultural sensibilities, but which doesn't really have any real-world effect onto them, are even more problematic. I am German, and i really like our constitution. I think it protects some very important values. If someone started buying books of the Grundgesetz and burn them, I'd think that they are an idiot and a dickhead. I would not start rioting. A very important part of civilized life is accepting that people may do stuff that you think is dickish, and you just have to accept that as long it doesn't actively impacts you. You don't get to dictate how other people deal with their stuff. You have a right to demand that your copies of a book don't get burned. You don't have a right to demand that no copies of a book get burned. Just because you consider something holy does not mean you get to demand that everyone else thinks the same. It is also tactically stupid. The best way to dig the water from under the far-right assholes who try to further their agenda by showing your violence is to prove them wrong. Let them have their stupid book-burning and either ignore it or have a peaceful counter-protest. Show that you are more civilized then them. That way, they look like idiots. If you react violent, it starts to look as if they have a point to a lot of people. You like the Grundgesetz, but how about the Strafgesetzbuch? In Germany these kinds of Quran burnings are illegal and would lead to prison sentences... Show nested quote +In Germany, religious defamation is covered by Article 166 of the Strafgesetzbuch, the German criminal law. If a deed is capable of disturbing the public peace, defamation is actionable. The article reads as follows:[51]
§ 166 Defamation of religious denominations, religious societies and World view associations
(1) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, the substance of the religious or world view conviction of others, shall be fined or imprisoned for up to three years.
(2) Whoever publicly or by dissemination of writings (§ 11 par. 3) defames, in a manner suitable to disturb the public peace, a church established in Germany or other religious society or world view association, or their institutions or customs, shall be punished likewise. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_lawThe intent to disturb public peace is clearly given here, so there wouldn't be a long discussion here...
I wasn't aware of that. Sounds like a reasonable way to prevent this stupid situation.
|
On April 19 2022 23:06 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2022 22:34 Elroi wrote:On April 19 2022 21:42 Godwrath wrote:
So what is going to be Moohdoo, ban hateful speech or not. The comparison between someone burning animes to the burning of a book which some people deem sacred is so idiotic that you should be ashamed.
That doesn't justify the looting, but the outrage itself, if It isn't properly punished, is more than comprensible.
No, we have freedom of speech in Sweden. That includes sacrilege. I remember an art installation depicting Jesus in various explicit homoerotic situations. No burning of cars that time. The problem is not the provocation. The problem is that we have entire suburbs now that are more or less controlled by criminal clans consisting of first and second generation immigrants. Ambulances need police escort and even the regular mail service has stopped serving some of these areas. That's how bad it is. I've heard similar claims in numerous European countries, but are there any actual sources to back this up? All my interactions with immigrants in places like Amsterdam, Brussels, and Paris, especially Muslim immigrants, as an out trans woman have always been very respectful and nice
It's tricky because it depends on what kind of data or sources you want. Obviously, what I said about ambulances and the postal service is anecdotal (but factually correct). There are many such anecdotes about how often ethnically based clans and gangs are taking control of different neighborhoods, the most striking example was last year when the criminal Ali Khan clan with roots in Turkey put up roadblocks around an entire neighborhood during a gang fight, basically controlling who went in and out of a suburb with 20 000 inhabitants (Angered). There was a book by a Swedish journalist about that clan that was published last year that made a lot of headlines. She basically details how the clan has created an entire parallel society with their own juridical system and even their own welfare system.
If you want numbers to corroborate this development, specifically in Sweden, you’d have to take a look at the numbers reflecting organized crime, armed robberies etc, which have all more or less doubled since 2015. It's the same with the number of sexual assaults. There is a surge in particularly violent robberies in Sweden involving sexual violence, humiliation and even torture. I personally think that this is to a large extent hate crimes committed by immigrants targeting the majority population, but it is hard to get a clear idea of what is happening because it is illegal to collect data based on ethnicity and its still not politically correct to talk about.
I don't have any evidence to back it up, but I don't think it would be safe to be in one of these areas as a trans person. I've literally never seen the pride flag there, for example, even though it's absolutely everywhere else in Sweden. There is nothing about these places that communicates tolerance.
|
On April 20 2022 00:00 plated.rawr wrote:
Same shit's been happening in Norway, altough with less violent counterreactions than in Sweden. The recipe is the same - racist far-right shitheads exploit our culture for and respect of free speech and desire for open discourse by hosting "appeals" or political markings, aimed precisely at agitating the muslim population. Since the antidemonstrants frequently end up getting pissed by the targeted hate from the appealants, the demonstration hosts get police protection - which gets caught in the crossfire.
Result is far-right talking points - "look at violent muslims" and "they hate free speech" and "poor injured cops" - all which people who are not really paying attetion to the situation, swallow eagerly. After all, there was a demonstration, sure, ugly things were said sure, but that doesnt excuse violence - and especially not against public servants. Or so goes the general logic.
Its all stupid. The far-right agitators are deliberately using the legal and cultural framework to target and harass a minority with little governal and political representation. They have no way of stopping the harassment - the only recourse is dealing with the shit yourself. Or so goes the general reaction.
Id want western legalese to admit its legal, moral and cultural institutions to be flawed, and such behaviour against a "defenseless" minority to be unacceptable. Otherwise, the provocations will keep using the western legal institutions to shield their hate.
Jail anyone involved with violence. Then combine and apply the combined sentencing from the violence on the provocateurs.
The signal needs to be "if you start shit, youre responsible for the consequences."
That seems like a fair analysis of this situation, and of the broader problems with the far right and their bigotry and hatred. But I think it also bears analysis whether the basic values of that religious minority, like those of the far right, are also problematic. Valuing the words and laws of a long dead prophet over all things, including other people's lives and property, is something that imo should be discouraged and unwelcome in modern society. It's hard for me to see people who hold those beliefs as being merely passive and reactive, even if they are a minority and are being targeted by unsavory actors. I feel the same about fundamentalist Christians over here though they're less of a minority.
|
The problem with blasphemy laws and such like is very simple - placing certain opinions above others, giving them special protections and power where they should not. Someone might think the Bible is sacred, but if theya re burning cars over it, they are far more reprhensible than the one that is publically burning a Bible. Likewise with the Koran, or any other "sacred" book.
That people are burning cars does not make them an oppressed minority being harrassed and powerless. It just makes those specific people violent. I also find it disturbing that some people here defend these actions on the ground that an entire ethnic group is undertaking these actions painting an entire religious ethnic group as rioting burners. They are not. It is but a minorty of a minority, who are even more of a scumbag and agitator than someone who publically burns Korans.
|
On April 20 2022 04:17 Starlightsun wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2022 00:00 plated.rawr wrote:
Same shit's been happening in Norway, altough with less violent counterreactions than in Sweden. The recipe is the same - racist far-right shitheads exploit our culture for and respect of free speech and desire for open discourse by hosting "appeals" or political markings, aimed precisely at agitating the muslim population. Since the antidemonstrants frequently end up getting pissed by the targeted hate from the appealants, the demonstration hosts get police protection - which gets caught in the crossfire.
Result is far-right talking points - "look at violent muslims" and "they hate free speech" and "poor injured cops" - all which people who are not really paying attetion to the situation, swallow eagerly. After all, there was a demonstration, sure, ugly things were said sure, but that doesnt excuse violence - and especially not against public servants. Or so goes the general logic.
Its all stupid. The far-right agitators are deliberately using the legal and cultural framework to target and harass a minority with little governal and political representation. They have no way of stopping the harassment - the only recourse is dealing with the shit yourself. Or so goes the general reaction.
Id want western legalese to admit its legal, moral and cultural institutions to be flawed, and such behaviour against a "defenseless" minority to be unacceptable. Otherwise, the provocations will keep using the western legal institutions to shield their hate.
Jail anyone involved with violence. Then combine and apply the combined sentencing from the violence on the provocateurs.
The signal needs to be "if you start shit, youre responsible for the consequences." That seems like a fair analysis of this situation, and of the broader problems with the far right and their bigotry and hatred. But I think it also bears analysis whether the basic values of that religious minority, like those of the far right, are also problematic. Valuing the words and laws of a long dead prophet over all things, including other people's lives and property, is something that imo should be discouraged and unwelcome in modern society. It's hard for me to see people who hold those beliefs as being merely passive and reactive, even if they are a minority and are being targeted by unsavory actors. I feel the same about fundamentalist Christians over here though they're less of a minority.
Absolutely. Just because people sharing origin, culture or religion are a minority, it does not give them a free pass in forcing their beliefs on others. That's a part of the power dynamic though - what makes a minority powerless to prevent oppression from the majority (or someone exploiting the framework of the majority), also makes them powerless in forcing their views to be followed by the majority. Since they cannot force anyone to follow their views (without breaking the laws of the lands - this is about following and exploiting the letters of the law, after all), their views are of less importance on a damage-to-society or fucking-with-basic-human-decency-level. Their views absolutely needs to be confronted and exposed, however that does not in any way legitimize exploitation of the tools of the majority for harassment, agitation and oppression of the minority.
There's always a discussion of what fits in legitimate ideological discourse of course, but how the far-right dickheads exploit vulnerabilities of western laws and norms to harass, agitate and spread hate is in no way a part of this.
Bottom line though, is that those with the power in the situation also sit with responsibility to wield the power responsibly - both by protecting those being oppressed, and by preventing those wanting to oppress others - even if the same group would fit on both sides in different situations. It's not about taking sides, its about the wielders of the laws of the land getting the stupid dicks trying to mess shit up for others to sit down and shut up.
Of course, there's governments that do poorly at this, either by incident, negligence or by design, but in the nordic European liberal tradition at least, there's a goal in equality of opportunity and humanity for all.
|
On April 20 2022 01:34 plated.rawr wrote:
The point is that someone acting from a position of power exploiting the institutions of power to harass a minority that cannot defend itself against said harassment. This is a flaw of the institutions being used, and must be remedied.
This is not about free speech, unquestionable religion or unbreakable taboos. The quran is just an easy-to-use tool to cause agitation. Anything else would be used if it was more effective in provoking the target of hatred. I personally believe that nothing is sacred or above being critiqued, questioned or made fun of. That said, I also believe in personal responsibility for any words and actions you utter, with the consequence of responsibility scaling with relative power to those your words and actions affect.
What you are effectively saying is that Sweden should adopt sacrilege laws as a give and take for Muslims being treated poorly. That is not a good solution. If Muslims are treated poorly, Sweden should find ways to treat Muslims better. Saying "Ok so since we treat you bad, you get to burn cars every so often is our concession" is just creating more problems and more resentment.
These riots and car burnings will not make things better. The lives of Muslims all across Europe are made worse by the people lighting cars on fire. They are not providing some kind of push back that will limit far right rhetoric.
Is it that you think the far right will say "yikes, didn't realize they'd burn cars. I ought to stop being mean. My bad!"??? I can't imagine you really think that. This really just feels like you are really mad at far right folks and you are saying "enemy of my enemy is my friend" rather than examining what this situation is really leading to. If I was a far right shit head, and I wanted to get Sweden to hate Muslim immigrants, I would be cheering in happiness over these riots. This provides an amazing amount of ammunition to use against immigrants.
Let me ask you directly: Do you think these riots have a net positive or net negative impact on the lives of Muslims living in Sweden?
|
Looking at some new polls from the French runoff election this Sunday. Solid gains for Macron and I think he'll win by 15+
|
On April 20 2022 07:33 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2022 04:17 Starlightsun wrote:On April 20 2022 00:00 plated.rawr wrote:
Same shit's been happening in Norway, altough with less violent counterreactions than in Sweden. The recipe is the same - racist far-right shitheads exploit our culture for and respect of free speech and desire for open discourse by hosting "appeals" or political markings, aimed precisely at agitating the muslim population. Since the antidemonstrants frequently end up getting pissed by the targeted hate from the appealants, the demonstration hosts get police protection - which gets caught in the crossfire.
Result is far-right talking points - "look at violent muslims" and "they hate free speech" and "poor injured cops" - all which people who are not really paying attetion to the situation, swallow eagerly. After all, there was a demonstration, sure, ugly things were said sure, but that doesnt excuse violence - and especially not against public servants. Or so goes the general logic.
Its all stupid. The far-right agitators are deliberately using the legal and cultural framework to target and harass a minority with little governal and political representation. They have no way of stopping the harassment - the only recourse is dealing with the shit yourself. Or so goes the general reaction.
Id want western legalese to admit its legal, moral and cultural institutions to be flawed, and such behaviour against a "defenseless" minority to be unacceptable. Otherwise, the provocations will keep using the western legal institutions to shield their hate.
Jail anyone involved with violence. Then combine and apply the combined sentencing from the violence on the provocateurs.
The signal needs to be "if you start shit, youre responsible for the consequences." That seems like a fair analysis of this situation, and of the broader problems with the far right and their bigotry and hatred. But I think it also bears analysis whether the basic values of that religious minority, like those of the far right, are also problematic. Valuing the words and laws of a long dead prophet over all things, including other people's lives and property, is something that imo should be discouraged and unwelcome in modern society. It's hard for me to see people who hold those beliefs as being merely passive and reactive, even if they are a minority and are being targeted by unsavory actors. I feel the same about fundamentalist Christians over here though they're less of a minority. Absolutely. Just because people sharing origin, culture or religion are a minority, it does not give them a free pass in forcing their beliefs on others. That's a part of the power dynamic though - what makes a minority powerless to prevent oppression from the majority (or someone exploiting the framework of the majority), also makes them powerless in forcing their views to be followed by the majority. Since they cannot force anyone to follow their views (without breaking the laws of the lands - this is about following and exploiting the letters of the law, after all), their views are of less importance on a damage-to-society or fucking-with-basic-human-decency-level. Their views absolutely needs to be confronted and exposed, however that does not in any way legitimize exploitation of the tools of the majority for harassment, agitation and oppression of the minority. There's always a discussion of what fits in legitimate ideological discourse of course, but how the far-right dickheads exploit vulnerabilities of western laws and norms to harass, agitate and spread hate is in no way a part of this. Bottom line though, is that those with the power in the situation also sit with responsibility to wield the power responsibly - both by protecting those being oppressed, and by preventing those wanting to oppress others - even if the same group would fit on both sides in different situations. It's not about taking sides, its about the wielders of the laws of the land getting the stupid dicks trying to mess shit up for others to sit down and shut up. Of course, there's governments that do poorly at this, either by incident, negligence or by design, but in the nordic European liberal tradition at least, there's a goal in equality of opportunity and humanity for all.
I agree with what you're saying and hope you guys have success in crafting the laws to be fair and equitable. It really is a difficult problem that affects almost all countries seems like.
|
On April 20 2022 12:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2022 01:34 plated.rawr wrote:
The point is that someone acting from a position of power exploiting the institutions of power to harass a minority that cannot defend itself against said harassment. This is a flaw of the institutions being used, and must be remedied.
This is not about free speech, unquestionable religion or unbreakable taboos. The quran is just an easy-to-use tool to cause agitation. Anything else would be used if it was more effective in provoking the target of hatred. I personally believe that nothing is sacred or above being critiqued, questioned or made fun of. That said, I also believe in personal responsibility for any words and actions you utter, with the consequence of responsibility scaling with relative power to those your words and actions affect. What you are effectively saying is that Sweden should adopt sacrilege laws as a give and take for Muslims being treated poorly. That is not a good solution. If Muslims are treated poorly, Sweden should find ways to treat Muslims better. Saying "Ok so since we treat you bad, you get to burn cars every so often is our concession" is just creating more problems and more resentment.
What? No, thats not what im saying at all. As i wrote in the post above this reply, its not about taking sides. The far-right dickheads exploit weaknesses in the legal framework to be protected against consequences while targeting and agitating a minority. That does not excuse or absolve the actions of the antiprotesters, who are breaking the law and can get punished through normal appliance of the law.
The problem is that that those agitating the antiprotesters go free, even though they are the instigators of the situation.
These riots and car burnings will not make things better. The lives of Muslims all across Europe are made worse by the people lighting cars on fire. They are not providing some kind of push back that will limit far right rhetoric.
Is it that you think the far right will say "yikes, didn't realize they'd burn cars. I ought to stop being mean. My bad!"??? I can't imagine you really think that. This really just feels like you are really mad at far right folks and you are saying "enemy of my enemy is my friend" rather than examining what this situation is really leading to. If I was a far right shit head, and I wanted to get Sweden to hate Muslim immigrants, I would be cheering in happiness over these riots. This provides an amazing amount of ammunition to use against immigrants.
Did you miss my theme of personal responsibility? If you burn a car, youre guilty of damaging property and possibly endangering the lives of others, and can (and should) be put to trial for the offense. The antiprotesters are not exploiting weaknesses in the legal framework to avoid consequence of their actions, or pretending their actions are an acceptable or normal part of ideological discourse.
They are not deliberately exploiting and undermining the laws, norms and cultures if the land to spread hate under the guise of lawfulness.
Again, the antiprotesters are not my friends, and neither are the far-right dickheads. The antiprotesters have my sympathy however, for while the agitators wield the law to defend them while spreading their hate, there is no legal recourse for the muslim population against the hate.
Let me ask you directly: Do you think these riots have a net positive or net negative impact on the lives of Muslims living in Sweden?
Of course this is bad for swedish muslims. Flipping out because soneone keeps being a dick to you is not about rational, well-thought-out responses. Thats part of why the far-right uses the western cultural ideological and legal institutions to shield themselves while spreading hate. It gives them legal protection to hate and agitate while also egging their targets of hatred into less-than-acceptable actions.
Weaknesses in cultural and legal frameworks which allows hate groups to harass and agitate without worry of responsibility of consequence, must be fixed. As long as the flaws exist, harassment and societal resentmemt and polarization will keep growing.
Not to mention such gregarious oversights of the cultural and legal frameworks, and exploitation of those, serves to undermine trust in the institutions meant to support the people. This has always been one of neo-nazi groups' main methods and goals - to sow instability and dissatisfaction within the culture through the usage of the culture's own liberal frameworks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
