| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Voksenlokker
1 Post
The problem is that that those agitating the antiprotesters go free, even though they are the instigators of the situation. They didn't instigate anything. Unless you're implying that a Muslim simply has no control over whether he chooses to respond with violence to banal provocations or not. If that is the case, I think the immigration hardliners have an excellent argument. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
smille
30 Posts
On April 21 2022 01:00 Voksenlokker wrote: They didn't instigate anything. Unless you're implying that a Muslim simply has no control over whether he chooses to respond with violence to banal provocations or not. If that is the case, I think the immigration hardliners have an excellent argument. I think plated.rawr was merely trying to raise awareness for struggles of minorities. Moreover, they pointed out the fact that most, if not all, countries’ laws won’t hold you accountable after taking provocative actions for the sole reason of spreading your hatred for certain groups of people. The latter in particular, I found very interesting as I wasn’t aware of the role laws play in this context and how it facilitates scapegoating and splitting society. Also, as mentioned before, don’t confuse the public burning of a Qur’an with, e.g., caricatures published by satirical magazines. The motive is key here; one is only being done to instigate outrage while the other questions the status quo which then (hopefully) leads the receiver to challenge their beliefs. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15737 Posts
On April 20 2022 15:21 plated.rawr wrote: 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. 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. 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. I appreciate your elaboration. I think the only point where we disagree is what constitutes "instigation" and how we should expect people to react to Quran burning. I think this is well stated below: On April 21 2022 01:00 Voksenlokker wrote: They didn't instigate anything. Unless you're implying that a Muslim simply has no control over whether he chooses to respond with violence to banal provocations or not. If that is the case, I think the immigration hardliners have an excellent argument. When I said the ethics you are putting forth essentially just qualify as anti-blasphemy laws, I think what I was picking up on was you implying we ought to expect people to respond this way to Quran burning. I would say anyone who we expect or can rationalize responding that way should have already been deported or never allowed in the country to begin with. If we say people we expect to burn cars should be allowed in the country, in many ways we are excusing their behavior, even though you also say they should be punished. Perhaps this requires a bit of elaboration, because right now what you are saying feels contradictory. On one hand you are saying these people are being unfairly instigated. On the other hand, you are saying they should be punished. When you say it is unfair for them to be instigated, it feels like you are saying it is an expected reaction. Should people who we expect to react this way be in the country to begin with? Surely you would never respond this way to any book being burned, right? What separates you from them? Does the difference between you and them belong in a civilized society? | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On April 21 2022 02:23 smille wrote: I think plated.rawr was merely trying to raise awareness for struggles of minorities. Moreover, they pointed out the fact that most, if not all, countries’ laws won’t hold you accountable after taking provocative actions for the sole reason of spreading your hatred for certain groups of people. The latter in particular, I found very interesting as I wasn’t aware of the role laws play in this context and how it facilitates scapegoating and splitting society. Also, as mentioned before, don’t confuse the public burning of a Qur’an with, e.g., caricatures published by satirical magazines. The motive is key here; one is only being done to instigate outrage while the other questions the status quo which then (hopefully) leads the receiver to challenge their beliefs. I find your distinction highly artificial and your motive-interpretation to be more reflective of your own stance on the matter at hand, than an actual general fact. A caricature is also meant to provoke - if it doesn't it is pointless. The issue here is that, just like with the Muhammed-drawings, a minority cant tolerate being provoked without burning down everything. In fact, burning the quran showcases how immigration (not all immigration - and absolutely not all immigrants mind you) has negatively impacted society as the minority is imposing their culture on the majority. What should happen in a culture clash is obviously debatable, but personally I find trying to murder those with whom you disagree to be an unacceptable approach in a civilized society. | ||
|
Vivax
22191 Posts
 ) | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12391 Posts
| ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On April 21 2022 03:25 Nebuchad wrote: That's a somewhat random one shot sentence. What "people" is behing dehumanized here? A book is not a person. A religion is not people. No one here has implied or argued that some people are not humans.I'm of the opinion that dehumanizing people is in most cases a worse indication of character than burning cars is. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
That's my oversimplified one sentence hot take | ||
|
smille
30 Posts
On April 21 2022 02:49 Ghostcom wrote: I find your distinction highly artificial and your motive-interpretation to be more reflective of your own stance on the matter at hand, than an actual general fact. A caricature is also meant to provoke - if it doesn't it is pointless. The issue here is that, just like with the Muhammed-drawings, a minority cant tolerate being provoked without burning down everything. In fact, burning the quran showcases how immigration (not all immigration - and absolutely not all immigrants mind you) has negatively impacted society as the minority is imposing their culture on the majority. What should happen in a culture clash is obviously debatable, but personally I find trying to murder those with whom you disagree to be an unacceptable approach in a civilized society. Well, my own stance is the following. If I know something is precious to someone, I won’t destroy it publicly, let alone burn it. Even as an atheist who believes society would be better off without religion, I can clearly see that this is completely disrespectful and unethical. Afterall, it is most likely not only the burning of a book – it’s a symbol of the powerlessness perceived by minorities. There is nothing artificial about the distinction. Admittedly, what I see problematic myself is, how feasible such laws could be enforced, which is not my field of expertise. Anyway, I agree with you that murder isn’t acceptable any case. I just don’t see what bearing this has in this case. Do you think that those people who would feel offended by the burning of a Qu’ran, are mainly those who do also engage in murdering those with whom they disagree? Besides, do you think the demographics who are “culturally european”, don’t have in large parts the same issues? To my knowledge, riots with burning cars have not been imported to Europe through immigration. To be clear, rioters need to be held accountable for their actions. Just as the ones who deliberately instigated the riots with provocative actions. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On April 21 2022 06:22 smille wrote: Well, my own stance is the following. If I know something is precious to someone, I won’t destroy it publicly, let alone burn it. Even as an atheist who believes society would be better off without religion, I can clearly see that this is completely disrespectful and unethical. Afterall, it is most likely not only the burning of a book – it’s a symbol of the powerlessness perceived by minorities. There is nothing artificial about the distinction. Admittedly, what I see problematic myself is, how feasible such laws could be enforced, which is not my field of expertise. Anyway, I agree with you that murder isn’t acceptable any case. I just don’t see what bearing this has in this case. Do you think that those people who would feel offended by the burning of a Qu’ran, are mainly those who do also engage in murdering those with whom they disagree? Besides, do you think the demographics who are “culturally european”, don’t have in large parts the same issues? To my knowledge, riots with burning cars have not been imported to Europe through immigration. To be clear, rioters need to be held accountable for their actions. Just as the ones who deliberately instigated the riots with provocative actions. It is an artificial distinction. You have decided that provocation A is ok, but provocation B is not with the only argument provided being that A is in your mind less provocative than B because B destroys a physical thing. You argued it was about motive, but the motive for both A and B is to provoke to shine a spotlight on an issue. Further, modern European history shows that whether you destroy a copy of a book or make a drawing insulting the profet, or even just show one of said drawings you run a high risk of being met with the veto of violence. A teacher was beheaded in France. A publishing place was shot up, the Swedish mob literally tried to kill police officers according to the Swedish police and they also tried to ram Rasmus Paludan with a car. I think quite obviously the venn diagram partly overlaps (but obviously there are plenty who would not go for murder, but settle for successfully enforcing the veto of violence). Concerning whether or not ethnic europeans would burn cars, I am sure they would - wheeling out the guillotines isn't out of the question either. But there seem to be a rathe large difference in what would be deemed a sufficient cause to trigger such things as in modern history, especially in Scandinavia, it doesn't really happen. | ||
|
smille
30 Posts
On April 21 2022 14:13 Ghostcom wrote: It is an artificial distinction. You have decided that provocation A is ok, but provocation B is not with the only argument provided being that A is in your mind less provocative than B because B destroys a physical thing. You argued it was about motive, but the motive for both A and B is to provoke to shine a spotlight on an issue. Further, modern European history shows that whether you destroy a copy of a book or make a drawing insulting the profet, or even just show one of said drawings you run a high risk of being met with the veto of violence. A teacher was beheaded in France. A publishing place was shot up, the Swedish mob literally tried to kill police officers according to the Swedish police and they also tried to ram Rasmus Paludan with a car. I think quite obviously the venn diagram partly overlaps (but obviously there are plenty who would not go for murder, but settle for successfully enforcing the veto of violence). Concerning whether or not ethnic europeans would burn cars, I am sure they would - wheeling out the guillotines isn't out of the question either. But there seem to be a rathe large difference in what would be deemed a sufficient cause to trigger such things as in modern history, especially in Scandinavia, it doesn't really happen. It is as artificial as differentiating between homicide and inflicting bodily harm with fatal consequences, without intention to kill. Ideally, satire is healthy for public discourse. For example, it uncovers double standards in all sorts of demographics and makes them visible and comprehensible to a broader audience. When you look at what is released by satirical outlets, you will also often find that their works don’t follow an agenda and rather that all sides of the political spectrum can be their victim. If on the other hand a far-right politician, or by extension a far-right party, frequently attracts attention by provoking minorities (which is a far-right thing you might have noticed), then I’m having a hard time not to make a distinction for myself. And I bet you see the difference as well. There is nothing funny and no subliminal ironic message in the burning of books. It just says: “I don’t like this minority. I know large parts of the population don’t like this minority neither. I also know that the vast majority of the population, at least, will not be not upset if I make use of my freedom of speech to provoke this minority.” | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
On April 21 2022 20:15 smille wrote: It is as artificial as differentiating between homicide and inflicting bodily harm with fatal consequences, without intention to kill. Ideally, satire is healthy for public discourse. For example, it uncovers double standards in all sorts of demographics and makes them visible and comprehensible to a broader audience. When you look at what is released by satirical outlets, you will also often find that their works don’t follow an agenda and rather that all sides of the political spectrum can be their victim. If on the other hand a far-right politician, or by extension a far-right party, frequently attracts attention by provoking minorities (which is a far-right thing you might have noticed), then I’m having a hard time not to make a distinction for myself. And I bet you see the difference as well. There is nothing funny and no subliminal ironic message in the burning of books. It just says: “I don’t like this minority. I know large parts of the population don’t like this minority neither. I also know that the vast majority of the population, at least, will not be not upset if I make use of my freedom of speech to provoke this minority.” Burning the quran does reveal a double standard - if you can't see that, nor provide any counterarguments other than "I don't think so", I think it is time we stop here. The point is that you can burn a million bibles (or whatever else really) in Scandinavia and people would be crossed with you due to pollution, but not because you burned the bible. Crucify your penis and we will largely ignore you, or at the most give you a chuckle. Burn 1 quran or publish a drawing and people will try to kill you. Are you even aware of how reluctant Sweden has been at adressing their ghettos and gangs? Malmö has been nicknamed the Chicago of the North due to the amount of violence and the Swedish politicians largely ignored the issues for the past 15 years. Further you seemed to have skipped the step of "why does the right wing not like this minority" (I am actually not sure you can classify stram kurs as a right-wing party as they are a single-issue party with no economic policy, but I digress). But could the why be because the minority tries to impose its cultural values on the majority? And burning a quran showcases exactly this. | ||
|
Vivax
22191 Posts
On April 21 2022 21:20 Ghostcom wrote: Crucify your penis and we will largely ignore you, or at the most give you a chuckle. Damn Scandinavia sounds like a tough place. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
If you want pictures of the "artist" preparing to do the deed: https://www.bt.dk/samfund/tiltalt-for-blufaerdighedskraenkelse-fredag-hev-han-pikken-frem-igen At least they didn't publish any pictures of the crucified thingy. He does it as a tribute to a painting of the crucified christ with an erection. Yeah, the rabbit hole only goes deeper... | ||
|
Vivax
22191 Posts
On April 21 2022 21:42 Ghostcom wrote: If you want pictures of the "artist" preparing to do the deed: https://www.bt.dk/samfund/tiltalt-for-blufaerdighedskraenkelse-fredag-hev-han-pikken-frem-igen At least they didn't publish any pictures of the crucified thingy. He does it as a tribute to a painting of the crucified christ with an erection. Yeah, the rabbit hole only goes deeper... Well there are some weird self mutilation fans, good for him if it earns him something I guess. What I think defines the issue is that riots caused by Quran burnings usually stay confined to the country it happened in, which are mostly France, Sweden. In Germany it would happen too but burning the book there would be illegal as it'd be labeled provocation of unrest. The peeps who do that stuff should be held accountable under that same label unless it's confined to a satirical medium. No need for rioting if the legal system handles it. Getting rid of gangs with a muslim background is another issue, it would require minorities to be more spread out across the country and involved with locals in education facilities. That's not possible when you take in large swathes of migrants at once (or rather, it's more work to organize and find workers for that). | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
What Rasmus Paludan did is not illegal in Sweden (nor in Denmark where he has also done it). Yet you state as a fact that it should be - clearly it isn't so cut and dry. EDIT: I mean, I guess what you are saying is that the German law should be adopted, but there are a lot of reasons not to do so, and I think it is a cultural clash which is going to be hard to solve. There is currently a law being discussed in EU about regulation of e.g. social media. Germany wants to tighten regulation of illegal (child porn and the likes) AND "harmful" content. Harmful is undefined and is highly worrisome in my opinion - because who decides what is harmful? | ||
|
Vivax
22191 Posts
On April 22 2022 01:38 Ghostcom wrote: Who defines what is a satirical medium? What Rasmus Paludan did is not illegal in Sweden (nor in Denmark where he has also done it). Yet you state as a fact that it should be - clearly it isn't so cut and dry. EDIT: I mean, I guess what you are saying is that the German law should be adopted, but there are a lot of reasons not to do so, and I think it is a cultural clash which is going to be hard to solve. There is currently a law being discussed in EU about regulation of e.g. social media. Germany wants to tighten regulation of illegal (child porn and the likes) AND "harmful" content. Harmful is undefined and is highly worrisome in my opinion - because who decides what is harmful? I don't know those countries well, is it legal in scandinavian countries to burn the national flag or run around in public like in Die Hard with a shield saying n***ers go home? The data laws are another topic altogether. I'm opposed to more 'regulation' as for the consumer so far it was mostly a facade (you have pick the type of cookies before being able to use a site and can't just opt out of that process altogether) and the purpose imho is rather to put filtering mechanisms in place to not allow the public to see information politicians don't want them to see. The justification for information control has been the same for years now. They always say it's about money laundering, porn etc. lol. As if a war wasn't a reason to censor things going against a nations narrative. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28743 Posts
That said, usually in Scandinavia, Denmark is a bit more permissive regarding 'what goes' than Norway is, and Sweden tends to be a bit stricter. | ||
|
raynpelikoneet
Finland43270 Posts
On April 22 2022 02:53 Liquid`Drone wrote: That said, usually in Scandinavia, Denmark is a bit more permissive regarding 'what goes' than Norway is, and Sweden tends to be a bit stricter. And we will learn from your mistakes, that being said we are there in 5 years good or bad. | ||
| ||
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Weekly #120
Percival vs ShamelessLIVE!
Creator vs Krystianer
Zoun vs TBD
PiG Sty Festival
Group D
YoungYakov vs ShoWTimELIVE!
ByuN vs Serral
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
WardiTV Winter Champion…
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
