|
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 08 2017 07:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 07:02 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the Muslims I've met, I can say this much: the majority are not terrible people, and like with almost all other identity classifications of interest, most people want simply to live their lives in peace and be able to pay the bills. However, it's hard not to see the tendencies in them that enable extremism to thrive, in their Western home or in their MidEast home. And it's not just the same old "every group has its bad apples" problem either. Christians generally don't support the Ku Klux Klan or any other similar religiously-guided extremist group of their own religion. Whereas if you really dig into it, Muslims will generally admit an attitude that is worryingly sympathetic towards terrorism in the name of Islam.
Furthermore, refugees are the type of people who are ripe for being radicalized. They left their home hardly out of any ideological reason; most of them have little problem with the run-of-the-mill Islam-derivative law ("Sharia law"). They have no particular desire to be Westerners; they just want to flee war and if Germany is offering money as well, why not? But whereas the first generation, barring terrorists who just take advantage of the opportunity to cross the border, will generally merely be troublesome in a Western society (e.g. crime), second-generation refugees have little of the same memory of the troubles of war yet all of the backwards teachings that might compel them towards radicalization. It should not be a surprise that this happens - the only reason it is is because we live in a world where it's important to blatantly deny the existence of race/religion-related problems because it's "racist" to acknowledge them.
And, incidentally, attitudes towards this are one example of the major differences between the West Europeans and the more Eastern ones. This right here is the well reasoned way to present some polite xenophobia. And then you preempt the counter argument by a little racism based martyring. "People will call me racist for saying this, but its the truth". Then you move right into the "refugees are ripe to be radicalized" by providing some dubious claim about them and where they came from. You talk about some Sharia Law based on a garbage understanding of it and again provide zero evidence(Syria wasn't under some terrible version of Sharia law, ISIS is sort of a frat boy nightmare version of Islam). Take notes people, this is how you make arguments that 1.5 billion people are terrorists or support terrorism based on nothing. Not through yelling, but by slow attrition making unfounded claim after unfounded claim that sound sort of true.
I don't think there is anything wrong with the second sentence that you highlighted in LegalLord's post. From Canadian perspective (everything after this is, meaning I am speaking of Muslims in Canada, though it probably pertains in some part to Muslims in other western countries), as non-Muslim, non-christian, I am free to criticize Christianity. However, if I were to criticize Islam it is very likely that people would call me a bigot.
As well, there are certainly people who are just blatantly bigoted towards Muslims, but that does not mean that Muslims themselves do not have to adapt their religion to western ways of life as well. Obviously there are those who are, in fact there are probably very many. However, it is only Muslims who can say it what way it may be good for them to change, whereas where a non-Muslim, with a different perspective to suggest something, it is likely that they would be regarded as a bigot.
In addition, I would argue that in some degrees Islam does need to change in the west. If you compare Islam to Christianity in Canada, the church used to more prevalent and your average christian more extreme in their religious conviction. Over time though things have largely calmed down and Christianity no longer has as much many influence on Canadian society. My point is that Islam, if it wants to survive in the west, needs to go through this same process. Right now your average Muslim seems like a Christian from 40 or 50 years (not that I was alive then, so maybe someone has a better idea of it than me) in their level of conviction. Now, of course there are differences between the situations.
As Christianity calmed down everyone more or less was Christian, and therefore saying that "maybe doing something because the bible says so is dumb" didn't cause one to perceived as a bigot by others, it was merely an opinion. Now, though, with Islam only the Muslim minority is truly allowed to criticize their religion, which in a way makes sense if compared to the Christian situation, since it was only Christians (maybe atheists too) criticizing then. However, I would there is in some part a defensive held a significant portion of the Muslim community towards their religion, which is probably well warranted, since they have been subject to prejudice. Still, this is in part why others should be able to offer their opinion on Islam without merely being labeled a bigot, since otherwise it seems Muslims would be less likely, or at least far slower to embrace change to their religion.
In part what I think this boils down to for a lot of people is not a problem with Islam in particular, but a problem with religion in general. Islam is just an on average more extreme (not in the terrorist sense, that side is not particularly relevant I think) than others, and they find fault in that. Especially since by refusing to be criticized it feels as though Islam refuses to adapt.
Well, that's sort of a thing I have been thinking about for a while. I just wrote it out quick so it might not make much sense. Also, it might be all wrong and maybe I am dumb. However, if you disagree please tell me why and explain, because I am glad to learn where I have made mistakes.
|
I was playing Dota in a public game a few days after the whole Dutch-Turkey incident. There were two Turks on my team and we were losing. One of them was being an obnoxious little bitch all game long, complaining about how we all sucked. Just that typical blame everyone-but-myself attitude. Another team mate looked up his profile, found out he was Turkish, and started insulting him based on that. The obnoxious player then retaliated by echoing Erdogans lines of "we will outbreed you, turn you all into Islam". The other Turkish guy, who up until that point had been perfectly reasonable and even trying to keep the team motivated to get the game back on track despite the fact that we were losing, quickly started doing the same.
It's just an anecdote, I guess, but it is a little disturbing at times how even seemingly nice people hold those kinds of views, and will express them at the slightest provocation. I see Erdogan as part of that politically active ultra-conservative Salafist Muslim movement out of which ISIS appears to have been born. Erdogan, incidentally, is supported mostly by the rural middle of Turkey (AND Turks living abroad) -- perhaps we can draw a parallel with a certain other country here? He obviously falls short of terrorism, as does the vast majority of this group, but it seems undeniable that people with that type of ultra-conservative mindset are more susceptible to ISIS propaganda than the more progressive-liberal type of Muslims, and - if based on the support Erdogan gets from Turks in Europe - the first group is a majority.
Of course, the same goes for people in the west, where the rural conservative people seem mostly inclined towards the xenophobia and "they will outbreed us!" scaremongering, and then are more likely to retaliate with violence. They are extremists of their own kind in that they do not differentiate between those Muslims that share in the Salafist possibly-edging-towards-extremism ideology and those who do not. I'm probably kind of sweeping with broad brushes here, though, I suppose.
At the same time, there's plenty of liberals in the west who absolutely deny that any of what I've said here as some truth to it, though, which is just as disturbing.
|
On April 08 2017 06:50 nojok wrote:
Did you even read? It's a minority of assholes, the same minority of pricks you belong to : the intolerants. You're like this minority you despise, you're one.
Coming from a "tolerant"? Thank you. That's a compliment. People like you are the reason why Europe is less safer now. All the fucking leftish crap that denies discussion because <pick random word from racist, bigot, islamophobia, etc> doesn't solve problems. That said, I've got no problem with skin colour. However, I can't tolerate Europe which does nothing about radicalised muslims. At the moment, it doesn't do enough. I won't be silenced by left propaganda. Ever. Europe must figure out why muslims are radicalised and how to stop that process.
On April 08 2017 07:02 LegalLord wrote:
And, incidentally, attitudes towards this are one example of the major differences between the West Europeans and the more Eastern ones.
I can agree with you this time. Eastern Europe is tolerant, but not to the point of blind self-harm. There is a thing called national interest and security. Introducing lots of random cultures without any regulation is like putting your head in tiger's mouth, hoping it won't eat you. That doesn't mean forbid them from coming, it means border control has to be stricter. E.g. if muslim comes to Europe, they have to be checked by border control appropriately. Apparently it's not enough now.
|
On April 08 2017 07:52 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 06:50 nojok wrote:
Did you even read? It's a minority of assholes, the same minority of pricks you belong to : the intolerants. You're like this minority you despise, you're one. Coming from a "tolerant"? Thank you. That's a compliment. People like you are the reason why Europe is less safer now. All the fucking leftish crap that denies discussion because <pick random word from racist, bigot, islamophobia, etc> doesn't solve problems. That said, I've got no problem with skin colour. However, I can't tolerate Europe which does nothing about radicalised muslims. At the moment, it doesn't do enough. I won't be silenced by left propaganda. Never.
Everyone agrees that radical islam needs to be fought.
What's biggoted is to consider every muslim and immigrant as a threat. An immense majority of muslims are perfectly fine people. I live in a district of Oslo where virtually everyone is muslim and people are super nice. It just happens that right wing rethoric makes as mych sense as considering all white christian men in Norway are terrorist because the overwhelming majority of terrorism victims in this country have fallen under the bullets of a white christian man.
If you think the point of the left is that we shouldn't fight radical islam, you are delusionnal.
|
On April 08 2017 07:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 07:52 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 06:50 nojok wrote:
Did you even read? It's a minority of assholes, the same minority of pricks you belong to : the intolerants. You're like this minority you despise, you're one. Coming from a "tolerant"? Thank you. That's a compliment. People like you are the reason why Europe is less safer now. All the fucking leftish crap that denies discussion because <pick random word from racist, bigot, islamophobia, etc> doesn't solve problems. That said, I've got no problem with skin colour. However, I can't tolerate Europe which does nothing about radicalised muslims. At the moment, it doesn't do enough. I won't be silenced by left propaganda. Never. Everyone agrees that radical islam needs to be fought. What's biggoted is to consider every muslim and immigrant as a threat. An immense majority of muslims are perfectly fine people. I live in a district of Oslo where virtually everyone is muslim and people are super nice. It just happens that right wing rethoric makes as mych sense as considering all white christian men in Norway are terrorist because the overwhelming majority of terrorism victims in this country have fallen under the bullets of a white christian man. If you think the point of the left is that we shouldn't fight radical islam, you are delusionnal.
I don't think the point of the left isn't to fight islam, but there are some very vocal leftists who refuse to discuss issues. Instead, they prefer to call people names (racist, bigot, etc) even when people have valid points. I'm not against immigration in general. I'm an immigrant myself. I'm against unlimited immigration which is not checked properly by border control.
|
On April 08 2017 08:01 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 07:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 08 2017 07:52 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 06:50 nojok wrote:
Did you even read? It's a minority of assholes, the same minority of pricks you belong to : the intolerants. You're like this minority you despise, you're one. Coming from a "tolerant"? Thank you. That's a compliment. People like you are the reason why Europe is less safer now. All the fucking leftish crap that denies discussion because <pick random word from racist, bigot, islamophobia, etc> doesn't solve problems. That said, I've got no problem with skin colour. However, I can't tolerate Europe which does nothing about radicalised muslims. At the moment, it doesn't do enough. I won't be silenced by left propaganda. Never. Everyone agrees that radical islam needs to be fought. What's biggoted is to consider every muslim and immigrant as a threat. An immense majority of muslims are perfectly fine people. I live in a district of Oslo where virtually everyone is muslim and people are super nice. It just happens that right wing rethoric makes as mych sense as considering all white christian men in Norway are terrorist because the overwhelming majority of terrorism victims in this country have fallen under the bullets of a white christian man. If you think the point of the left is that we shouldn't fight radical islam, you are delusionnal. I don't think the point of the left isn't to fight islam, but there are some very vocal leftists who refuse to discuss issues. Instead, they prefer to call people names (racist, bigot, etc) even when people have valid points. I'm not against immigration in general. I'm an immigrant myself. I'm against unlimited immigration which is not checked properly by border control.
They don't refuse to discuss, they refuse to discuss the issue on your basis (i.e. your “immigration/islam → terrorism” assumption). Those prejudices are actually counter-productive and thus dangerous, in France we couldn't have a serious debate about attacks because people like you insisted on talking about the religion instead of tackling the issue of the massive failures of our intel services (or complete derp like the Nice attack).
|
On April 08 2017 08:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 08:01 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 07:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 08 2017 07:52 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 06:50 nojok wrote:
Did you even read? It's a minority of assholes, the same minority of pricks you belong to : the intolerants. You're like this minority you despise, you're one. Coming from a "tolerant"? Thank you. That's a compliment. People like you are the reason why Europe is less safer now. All the fucking leftish crap that denies discussion because <pick random word from racist, bigot, islamophobia, etc> doesn't solve problems. That said, I've got no problem with skin colour. However, I can't tolerate Europe which does nothing about radicalised muslims. At the moment, it doesn't do enough. I won't be silenced by left propaganda. Never. Everyone agrees that radical islam needs to be fought. What's biggoted is to consider every muslim and immigrant as a threat. An immense majority of muslims are perfectly fine people. I live in a district of Oslo where virtually everyone is muslim and people are super nice. It just happens that right wing rethoric makes as mych sense as considering all white christian men in Norway are terrorist because the overwhelming majority of terrorism victims in this country have fallen under the bullets of a white christian man. If you think the point of the left is that we shouldn't fight radical islam, you are delusionnal. I don't think the point of the left isn't to fight islam, but there are some very vocal leftists who refuse to discuss issues. Instead, they prefer to call people names (racist, bigot, etc) even when people have valid points. I'm not against immigration in general. I'm an immigrant myself. I'm against unlimited immigration which is not checked properly by border control. They don't refuse to discuss, they refuse to discuss the issue on your basis (i.e. your “immigration/islam → terrorism” assumption). Those prejudices are actually counter-productive and thus dangerous, in France we couldn't have a serious debate about attacks because people like you insisted on talking about the religion instead of tackling the issue of the massive failures of our intel services (or complete derp like the Nice attack).
Intelligence services are probably doing quite a lot already. Sometimes too much (did you forget NSA/Snowden?) because it affects privacy. So, again, you're not discussing the right issues. The issues are all related to religion. You have to ask yourself why people get radicalised. When you answer that question you then try to resolve those reasons. It's not intelligence services. It's the wrong focus.
|
People are radicalized for the same reasons people spied on their own nation during the Cold War. Or get endocrinated into the KKK or a cult. None of this stuff is new, it's just all in Arabic.
|
On April 08 2017 08:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 08:01 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 07:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 08 2017 07:52 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 06:50 nojok wrote:
Did you even read? It's a minority of assholes, the same minority of pricks you belong to : the intolerants. You're like this minority you despise, you're one. Coming from a "tolerant"? Thank you. That's a compliment. People like you are the reason why Europe is less safer now. All the fucking leftish crap that denies discussion because <pick random word from racist, bigot, islamophobia, etc> doesn't solve problems. That said, I've got no problem with skin colour. However, I can't tolerate Europe which does nothing about radicalised muslims. At the moment, it doesn't do enough. I won't be silenced by left propaganda. Never. Everyone agrees that radical islam needs to be fought. What's biggoted is to consider every muslim and immigrant as a threat. An immense majority of muslims are perfectly fine people. I live in a district of Oslo where virtually everyone is muslim and people are super nice. It just happens that right wing rethoric makes as mych sense as considering all white christian men in Norway are terrorist because the overwhelming majority of terrorism victims in this country have fallen under the bullets of a white christian man. If you think the point of the left is that we shouldn't fight radical islam, you are delusionnal. I don't think the point of the left isn't to fight islam, but there are some very vocal leftists who refuse to discuss issues. Instead, they prefer to call people names (racist, bigot, etc) even when people have valid points. I'm not against immigration in general. I'm an immigrant myself. I'm against unlimited immigration which is not checked properly by border control. They don't refuse to discuss, they refuse to discuss the issue on your basis (i.e. your “immigration/islam → terrorism” assumption). Those prejudices are actually counter-productive and thus dangerous, in France we couldn't have a serious debate about attacks because people like you insisted on talking about the religion instead of tackling the issue of the massive failures of our intel services (or complete derp like the Nice attack).
I do not want to accept that the solution lies in things like surveillance of communications (which is how I read "intel services"). That is a path that leads to very bad things in my opinion and undermines our essential freedoms. That is just as foolish as not drawing pictures of Muhammed in order to appease those who might become radicalized. Je suis Charlie. There must be a better way to address the problem of radicalization than monitoring everyone -- which seems like it would not work well against those vehicle attacks at any rate. I'm personally in favour of NOT bombing the ever-living shit out of Muslims for a couple of decades and see if that works to our advantage somehow. Perhaps we can try NOT invading countries and thereby essentially radicalizing a massive group of locals against the west, who then spread propaganda over the internet in order to recruit people world-wide. Using education to essentially brainwash young Muslims into becoming liberals/progressives, maybe...
|
On April 08 2017 08:22 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 08:09 TheDwf wrote:On April 08 2017 08:01 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 07:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 08 2017 07:52 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 06:50 nojok wrote:
Did you even read? It's a minority of assholes, the same minority of pricks you belong to : the intolerants. You're like this minority you despise, you're one. Coming from a "tolerant"? Thank you. That's a compliment. People like you are the reason why Europe is less safer now. All the fucking leftish crap that denies discussion because <pick random word from racist, bigot, islamophobia, etc> doesn't solve problems. That said, I've got no problem with skin colour. However, I can't tolerate Europe which does nothing about radicalised muslims. At the moment, it doesn't do enough. I won't be silenced by left propaganda. Never. Everyone agrees that radical islam needs to be fought. What's biggoted is to consider every muslim and immigrant as a threat. An immense majority of muslims are perfectly fine people. I live in a district of Oslo where virtually everyone is muslim and people are super nice. It just happens that right wing rethoric makes as mych sense as considering all white christian men in Norway are terrorist because the overwhelming majority of terrorism victims in this country have fallen under the bullets of a white christian man. If you think the point of the left is that we shouldn't fight radical islam, you are delusionnal. I don't think the point of the left isn't to fight islam, but there are some very vocal leftists who refuse to discuss issues. Instead, they prefer to call people names (racist, bigot, etc) even when people have valid points. I'm not against immigration in general. I'm an immigrant myself. I'm against unlimited immigration which is not checked properly by border control. They don't refuse to discuss, they refuse to discuss the issue on your basis (i.e. your “immigration/islam → terrorism” assumption). Those prejudices are actually counter-productive and thus dangerous, in France we couldn't have a serious debate about attacks because people like you insisted on talking about the religion instead of tackling the issue of the massive failures of our intel services (or complete derp like the Nice attack). I do not want to accept that the solution lies in things like surveillance of communications (which is how I read "intel services"). That is a path that leads to very bad things in my opinion and undermines our essential freedoms. That is just as foolish as not drawing pictures of Muhammed in order to appease those who might become radicalized. Je suis Charlie. There must be a better way to address the problem of radicalization than monitoring everyone -- which seems like it would not work well against those vehicle attacks at any rate. I'm personally in favour of not bombing the ever-living shit out of Muslims for a couple of decades and see if that works to our advantage somehow. Perhaps we can try not invading countries and thereby essentially radicalizing a massive group of locals against the west, who then spread propaganda over the internet in order to recruit people world-wide. Using education to essentially brainwash young Muslims into becoming liberals/progressives, maybe...
Agreed. I remember a friend of mine had a report about drones. I think his conclusion is that even though drones kill terrorists, they still manage to use it as a propaganda to recruit more. So, maybe less interference in the Middle East could be the key. The only problem is all the dictators there are gone (I support democracy, but it seems it doesn't work in the Middle East). So, there will have to be a new leader to unite people there and keep them peaceful.
|
On April 08 2017 08:01 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 07:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 08 2017 07:52 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 06:50 nojok wrote:
Did you even read? It's a minority of assholes, the same minority of pricks you belong to : the intolerants. You're like this minority you despise, you're one. Coming from a "tolerant"? Thank you. That's a compliment. People like you are the reason why Europe is less safer now. All the fucking leftish crap that denies discussion because <pick random word from racist, bigot, islamophobia, etc> doesn't solve problems. That said, I've got no problem with skin colour. However, I can't tolerate Europe which does nothing about radicalised muslims. At the moment, it doesn't do enough. I won't be silenced by left propaganda. Never. Everyone agrees that radical islam needs to be fought. What's biggoted is to consider every muslim and immigrant as a threat. An immense majority of muslims are perfectly fine people. I live in a district of Oslo where virtually everyone is muslim and people are super nice. It just happens that right wing rethoric makes as mych sense as considering all white christian men in Norway are terrorist because the overwhelming majority of terrorism victims in this country have fallen under the bullets of a white christian man. If you think the point of the left is that we shouldn't fight radical islam, you are delusionnal. I don't think the point of the left isn't to fight islam, but there are some very vocal leftists who refuse to discuss issues. Instead, they prefer to call people names (racist, bigot, etc) even when people have valid points. I'm not against immigration in general. I'm an immigrant myself. I'm against unlimited immigration which is not checked properly by border control.
In my experience you generally come with a true statement about the world, like "islam is a term used to represent all muslims, so you probably should use extremism or wahabism or salafism to describe what you're trying to describe", then the rightwinger goes "apologist" "libtard" "regressive left" in no particular order, and then proceeds to complain that you don't want to discuss issues with him. Now I could spend 80% of my posts complaining about that and how calling people apologists is going to make them more apologist in the future because somehow that's supposed to make sense, or I could ignore that and talk about issues.
Not sure yet what I'll do, I'll get back to you on that.
|
On April 08 2017 08:27 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 08:22 a_flayer wrote:On April 08 2017 08:09 TheDwf wrote:On April 08 2017 08:01 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 07:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 08 2017 07:52 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 06:50 nojok wrote:
Did you even read? It's a minority of assholes, the same minority of pricks you belong to : the intolerants. You're like this minority you despise, you're one. Coming from a "tolerant"? Thank you. That's a compliment. People like you are the reason why Europe is less safer now. All the fucking leftish crap that denies discussion because <pick random word from racist, bigot, islamophobia, etc> doesn't solve problems. That said, I've got no problem with skin colour. However, I can't tolerate Europe which does nothing about radicalised muslims. At the moment, it doesn't do enough. I won't be silenced by left propaganda. Never. Everyone agrees that radical islam needs to be fought. What's biggoted is to consider every muslim and immigrant as a threat. An immense majority of muslims are perfectly fine people. I live in a district of Oslo where virtually everyone is muslim and people are super nice. It just happens that right wing rethoric makes as mych sense as considering all white christian men in Norway are terrorist because the overwhelming majority of terrorism victims in this country have fallen under the bullets of a white christian man. If you think the point of the left is that we shouldn't fight radical islam, you are delusionnal. I don't think the point of the left isn't to fight islam, but there are some very vocal leftists who refuse to discuss issues. Instead, they prefer to call people names (racist, bigot, etc) even when people have valid points. I'm not against immigration in general. I'm an immigrant myself. I'm against unlimited immigration which is not checked properly by border control. They don't refuse to discuss, they refuse to discuss the issue on your basis (i.e. your “immigration/islam → terrorism” assumption). Those prejudices are actually counter-productive and thus dangerous, in France we couldn't have a serious debate about attacks because people like you insisted on talking about the religion instead of tackling the issue of the massive failures of our intel services (or complete derp like the Nice attack). I do not want to accept that the solution lies in things like surveillance of communications (which is how I read "intel services"). That is a path that leads to very bad things in my opinion and undermines our essential freedoms. That is just as foolish as not drawing pictures of Muhammed in order to appease those who might become radicalized. Je suis Charlie. There must be a better way to address the problem of radicalization than monitoring everyone -- which seems like it would not work well against those vehicle attacks at any rate. I'm personally in favour of not bombing the ever-living shit out of Muslims for a couple of decades and see if that works to our advantage somehow. Perhaps we can try not invading countries and thereby essentially radicalizing a massive group of locals against the west, who then spread propaganda over the internet in order to recruit people world-wide. Using education to essentially brainwash young Muslims into becoming liberals/progressives, maybe... Agreed. I remember a friend of mine had a report about drones. I think his conclusion is that even though drones kill terrorists, they still manage to use it as a propaganda to recruit more. So, maybe less interference in the Middle East could be the key. The only problem is all the dictators there are gone (I support democracy, but it seems it doesn't work in the Middle East). So, there will have to be a new leader to unite people there and keep them peaceful.
Congratz guys, you found a simple solution for this complicated problem - have a Noble price!
But I would agree only with one exception.
In addition to no bombing, we should try not to draw Muhammed for 30 years too, a_flayer.
Or for however long it takes to convert 100% of muslims into liberals/progressives (because if its only 99,9% we still may have too much potential suicide bombers imo)
|
Being more serious now.
Every time i see a people with darker skin i come across in Poland, i try to look friendly or to smile at him/her, because i am aware there are viewed more hostile by morons than it was some years ago. Most of the times there are just scared and look away. This makes me fcking sad - and it will take billion years to change if this (terrorist crap) continues, which makes me even more sad. But to even think it would change someday, these terrorist acts must stop.
On the side note. I just wonder how can anyone expect, this poor, intolerant part of EU i live in, to be able to assimilate Muslim migrants, when our tolerant, rich friends from the west (and north now) have so many fails with it, and become less tolerant each year (populists running for power).
At this rate, no one will ever want Muslims in east EU.
Is this nations fault? i think this is just how people work and its not any different in other places.
We don't have Muslim neighbors, or coworkers or friends - we only hear about them in the news when they bomb airports/ride a truck into people/or shoot people in clubs.
How can one form a good opinion based on it? We would have to ban internet and news or something.
As a result of this, we have a boring society but we are not scared for ourselves, or for our dears, to use our only two subway lines in Warsaw (i do use it everyday btw) - even if its an illusion. Can we really blame people who don't want this to change?
One of my friends says, its kind of the same with guns. You can prevent gun crimes by not allowing civilians to carry guns. Majority of civilians wont be killing others anyway, but some small part would (and it works in EU comparing to US at least). So in a way, you can prevent suicide bombings etc by not having Muslims around. Well if you already gave guns to civilians it maybe hard to ban it now, but we still dont have many Muslims around to be radicalized in Poland.
I admit there is some logic to it even if the comparison seems harsh.
What is it about immigration that can outvalue the risk of terrorism for a country like Poland?
And since we will soon enter the era of automation, there will not be many job spots to fill anyway (especially for people with poor language skills/education like most migrants).
Edit : sorry for my English i have so few occasions to use it 
|
On April 08 2017 08:53 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 08:01 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 07:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 08 2017 07:52 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 06:50 nojok wrote:
Did you even read? It's a minority of assholes, the same minority of pricks you belong to : the intolerants. You're like this minority you despise, you're one. Coming from a "tolerant"? Thank you. That's a compliment. People like you are the reason why Europe is less safer now. All the fucking leftish crap that denies discussion because <pick random word from racist, bigot, islamophobia, etc> doesn't solve problems. That said, I've got no problem with skin colour. However, I can't tolerate Europe which does nothing about radicalised muslims. At the moment, it doesn't do enough. I won't be silenced by left propaganda. Never. Everyone agrees that radical islam needs to be fought. What's biggoted is to consider every muslim and immigrant as a threat. An immense majority of muslims are perfectly fine people. I live in a district of Oslo where virtually everyone is muslim and people are super nice. It just happens that right wing rethoric makes as mych sense as considering all white christian men in Norway are terrorist because the overwhelming majority of terrorism victims in this country have fallen under the bullets of a white christian man. If you think the point of the left is that we shouldn't fight radical islam, you are delusionnal. I don't think the point of the left isn't to fight islam, but there are some very vocal leftists who refuse to discuss issues. Instead, they prefer to call people names (racist, bigot, etc) even when people have valid points. I'm not against immigration in general. I'm an immigrant myself. I'm against unlimited immigration which is not checked properly by border control. In my experience you generally come with a true statement about the world, like "islam is a term used to represent all muslims, so you probably should use extremism or wahabism or salafism to describe what you're trying to describe", then the rightwinger goes "apologist" "libtard" "regressive left" in no particular order, and then proceeds to complain that you don't want to discuss issues with him. Now I could spend 80% of my posts complaining about that and how calling people apologists is going to make them more apologist in the future because somehow that's supposed to make sense, or I could ignore that and talk about issues. Not sure yet what I'll do, I'll get back to you on that.
How many Muslims in Europe follow a more-or-less Salafist ideology, do you reckon? Because if you go by the Turks in Europe that support Erdogan, there seems to be a majority (about 70% according to this random website I found). The majority of European Imams also seem to follow some kind of Salafist ideology, and it's been often cited to be the fastest growing movement on the planet. So perhaps using broad strokes with regards to some of this isn't entirely unjustified? While it's true that following such an ideology by itself isn't particularly harmful to society, I do feel that it inherently undermines some the western ideals by strongly imprinting such beliefs on children (such as that father Imam in Switzerland who instilled in his kids the idea not to shake the hands of a female [their teacher, in case] they were not related to). And some of it is quite simply incompatible, such as certain bodily modifications that I'd rather not mention, but which I also associate with that ultra-conservative ideology.
And we honestly do see a lot reflexes along the lines of "you can't say that!" or "that's racist!", or being labelled a fascist nazi or something whenever it gets brought up at any level, rather than showing a willingness to engage in any discussion. I'm sometimes worried that I will get banned for talking in the way that I do about it and feel the need to preface my comments and try to be really careful in how I approach the matter.
Also, many people seem completely unwilling to respond to my posts about this whenever it's brought up. Maybe that's just my own perception though, or the fact that my posts tend to be super vague because I try to be subtle, rather than just blurting out statements as they would pop in my mind.
|
I think it's quite easy to point to the problems and harder to devise solutions that are not illiberal or discriminatory, which might explain why people don't reply. I don't think discrimination is a serious issue in the UK (or Sweden, for example), but some Muslims will have a hard life just like some people from every background do, and then look to their religion for a 'righteous' outlet for their discontent.
We need to work on actual integration, not the multiculturalism of isolated communities which don't interact.
|
On April 08 2017 09:36 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 08:53 Nebuchad wrote:On April 08 2017 08:01 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 07:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 08 2017 07:52 Shield wrote:On April 08 2017 06:50 nojok wrote:
Did you even read? It's a minority of assholes, the same minority of pricks you belong to : the intolerants. You're like this minority you despise, you're one. Coming from a "tolerant"? Thank you. That's a compliment. People like you are the reason why Europe is less safer now. All the fucking leftish crap that denies discussion because <pick random word from racist, bigot, islamophobia, etc> doesn't solve problems. That said, I've got no problem with skin colour. However, I can't tolerate Europe which does nothing about radicalised muslims. At the moment, it doesn't do enough. I won't be silenced by left propaganda. Never. Everyone agrees that radical islam needs to be fought. What's biggoted is to consider every muslim and immigrant as a threat. An immense majority of muslims are perfectly fine people. I live in a district of Oslo where virtually everyone is muslim and people are super nice. It just happens that right wing rethoric makes as mych sense as considering all white christian men in Norway are terrorist because the overwhelming majority of terrorism victims in this country have fallen under the bullets of a white christian man. If you think the point of the left is that we shouldn't fight radical islam, you are delusionnal. I don't think the point of the left isn't to fight islam, but there are some very vocal leftists who refuse to discuss issues. Instead, they prefer to call people names (racist, bigot, etc) even when people have valid points. I'm not against immigration in general. I'm an immigrant myself. I'm against unlimited immigration which is not checked properly by border control. In my experience you generally come with a true statement about the world, like "islam is a term used to represent all muslims, so you probably should use extremism or wahabism or salafism to describe what you're trying to describe", then the rightwinger goes "apologist" "libtard" "regressive left" in no particular order, and then proceeds to complain that you don't want to discuss issues with him. Now I could spend 80% of my posts complaining about that and how calling people apologists is going to make them more apologist in the future because somehow that's supposed to make sense, or I could ignore that and talk about issues. Not sure yet what I'll do, I'll get back to you on that. So perhaps using broad strokes with regards to some of this isn't entirely unjustified?
Interesting, so there's a line. Cause there are a lot of racist people in far right parties, but apparently I don't get to call all of them racist. However there are a lot of radical muslims so we get to generalize and say islam. Please tell me, at what exact percentage is the line and how did you make that determination?
On April 08 2017 09:36 a_flayer wrote:
And we honestly do see a lot reflexes along the lines of "you can't say that!" or "that's racist!", or being labelled a fascist nazi or something whenever it gets brought up at any level
You seem to imply that I wasn't being serious about the exact same thing happening in reverse, going "No but this honestly happens" as if my part wasn't honest. It happens daily. Hourly? It happens to me personally more than once a week. Here's the thing, when I'm going to talk to you about islam, I don't feel the need to tell you about all of the people who are on your side and behave badly, cause I'm able to realize that if I were to do that, I would be the one making the conversation harder between the two of us.
|
Where do we draw the line? I basically asked you that very question, although not in such a direct way, I suppose. Rather than cherry picking one sentence out of my post, do you have anything to say about the whole substance of my post?
I'll just have to repeat myself... I said that 70% of Turks in Europe support the politically active Salafist/Islamist Erdogan. The majority of Imams also appear to be Salafists. I've said before in this thread that, according to the Mayor of Brussels, ALL the mosques in Brussels are ran by Salafist Imams. You seemed to agree that Salafism is possibly a problem, so I'm merely suggesting that since it appears to be a majority, maybe simply saying 'Islam is incompatible with western values' isn't that far off from the truth. I personally wouldn't state it as such, though, considering that would only further divide people. As I said towards the end of my post, I always try to be subtle and preface "Salafist" or something to my mentions of Islam when suggesting that there may be incompatibilities with integrating in western society.
Now, I feel I should add that Salafism in itself is quite diverse, so even saying "Salafism is bad" can be an overstatement, yet you felt comfortable more or less suggesting that. So is that where YOU draw the line? There are so many aspects in all of this, that it is incredibly difficult to determine what may be an accurate statement with regards to the ability to mix various ideologies and religions into a single culture/nation/union, or whatever entity you can come up with that needs to adhere to similar laws and societal expectations. If everyone always tried to be fully accurate in their statements about this, they'd need to list every single habit, every idea, every part of the ideology that they are personally referring to when they say "Islam is incompatible". It's impossible. Especially for low-educated rural people like me.
I also wasn't trying to imply you weren't being honest with your perception of being called a "libtard" when you might bring up the need to be more discerning in certain ideologies of Islam, I was merely trying to purvey my personal perception of the suppression of being able to criticize Islam at all. "Honestly" was directed at me, not you. Listen to the first few minutes of this video if you do not already see how this might be a more widespread problem, at least equally vocal as the actual fascist nazis such as Richard Spencer or the Ku Klux Klan:+ Show Spoiler +.
Finally, I don't know who you think is on my side, but I'm basically a one-man party over here. I don't consider myself a right-winger, nor do I have a problem with immigration policies. I certainly don't subscribe to any religions either. I don't dislike Islam any more than I do Christianity, really, but I do see greater levels of incompatibility as a result of - essentially - history.
|
Erdogan isn't a salafist. His support in the west mostly comes from nationalism anyway and not islamism. Nationalism is pretty crazy in Turkey. In the west people see Erdogan as someone who made the country 'great' (whatever that means).
|
Stockholm suspect believed to be ISIS-related, had Uzbekistani passport. Source
|
I am probably deep into what some people consider "leftist", yet I think we should really acknowledge how terribly we failed in communication about these issues and that my fellow leftist, who toss around words like "racism" are terribly misguided and do themselves and the whole society a huge disservice.
I don't really know what the situation is in other countries among common people, all I see from there are news and internet discussions, where you don't really see the everyday picture. But in Czech Republic, there any communication has come to a complete stop, where both sides have created a detailed strawman of the other and they just repeat the same slogans against it over and over. This all is a result of putting labels on people you disagree with and trying to dismiss their opinions as outright unacceptable instead of actually arguing.
There are now huge masses of people who "oppose migration", whatever that actually means - we can't really know for sure what solutions they propose to the problem, because they won't talk to anyone who shows a slight hint of not being in exactly the same camp and put such person down as a "welcomer" and start blabbering about how they are destroying the society, how they can't go outside without fear (even though there are almost no refugees in the country, nobody wants to stay there) etc... And we are a country, where "political corectness" hasn't even remotely reached levels found in the leftist circles in the US, or in the UK, some things that politicians openly say, you'd be surprised. Yet the "opponents of migration" feel cornered and threatened so much be the "suppresion of free speech" that they just go fight mode automatically because they don't want to cede any more of their liberties.
This situation is a huge issue that so many people refuse to acknowledge. Many "leftist" still naively believe that over time, the public opinion will change, that people can be educated and convinced, but they have already closed all avenues to do so, the trenches have been dug and manned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
