This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
When did it become acceptable to host diatribe like this in the mainstream press?
--copied transcript below--
It seems clear to me that the writer is a racist, and I'm wondering how the publication of such an incendiary viewpoint has become acceptable? Am I wrong, is this somehow OK? Is this just 'robust discussion'? I suspect not. According to Wiki, this same guy has said things such as:
"Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since the second World War? In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent. In a democratic age, you can't buck demography—except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out, as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you cannot outbreed the enemy, cull 'em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia's demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent."
"Cull 'em."
Edited to remove link to host site.
Post edited at 12:23
1
2
1
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Please could you post a transcript of the article?
Your link isn't accessible without subscribing to it.
Please could you post a transcript of the article?
Your link isn't accessible without subscribing to it.
2
In reply to Trangia:
Good idea, should have thought of that. I'm not a subscriber, it opens OK for me. But I'll take my link down if I can. Here's the copied transcript:
-- ON MY website last Saturday morning, I recalled a conversation I’d had in Germany over the summer with a lady who had “found herself on the receiving end of some vibrant multicultural outreach from one of Mutti Merkel’s boy charmers”.
I wrote: As a result, she no longer goes out after dark. She had also decided — with reluctance, because she enjoyed it — to cancel her participation in a local Christmas market, where she’d sung carols every year — in broad daylight.
“Why would you do that?” I asked.
“Because it’s Christmas,” she said, “and I’m worried Christmas will be a target.”
And I concluded: “Christmas markets are a grand German tradition, but probably not for much longer.”
Forty-eight hours later, 12 people were dead and 48 injured (at the time of writing) because they attended a Christmas market at Breitscheidplatz in Berlin. This BBC headline conveys the madness of our times — “Lorry kills 12 at Christmas market”.
Ah, so the truck did it. So it’s nothing that can’t be fixed by some basic truck control measures — like, say, licensing and registration of trucks. What a great idea.
Within moments, the familiar rituals of this latest vehicular misfortune emerged: “It was definitely deliberate,” said one intended victim. And as CNN reported:
“Witnesses told police the attacker had shouted out … ”
Go on, take a wild guess!
“… ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘Infidels must die’ as he carried out the attacks.”
The less obviously evasive responses were almost as dispiriting. An English tourist visiting from Birmingham complained that in his native city ugly bollards line the sidewalks to obstruct any similarly homicidal lorries.
The Christkindlmarkt is a German tradition dating back to the Middle Ages: Munich’s is over 700 years old.
A society that can only hold three-quarters-of-a-millennium-old traditions behind an impenetrable security perimeter is a society that will soon lose those traditions. My own preference is that, if free countries have to have unsightly security controls, why don’t they have them around the national borders rather than around every single thing inside those borders?
As I said on American radio a handful of mass slaughters ago: “I think this is insane when I listen to people say ‘Oh, we’re now going to have to have metal detectors in nightclubs, security in nightclubs’.”
Okay, so what happens next? They blow up a bakery, they blow up a little pastry shop, so then you’re gonna have to have metal detectors to get into the pastry shop?
“Instead of having all these individual perimeters around every Dunkin’ Donuts franchise or every gas station, or ever JC Penney, why not have just one big perimeter around the country? We could call it a border! And we could have, like, border security!”
But that’s just crazy talk. On Fox News’s top-rated Kelly File, guest host Martha MacCallum asked two experts about the Berlin carnage and both of them instantly pivoted to military strikes against IS, the need to form an Arab version of NATO, and other grand schemes. I’m all in favour of destroying IS, but IS is a mere symptom, not a cause.
After IS is destroyed, it’ll be something else. In many parts of the world, it’s already something else: al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, al-Shabaab, al-Nusra Front, al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, al-this, al-that, al-the other ...
Neither of MacCallum’s guests so much as raised the question of why people who want to murder you for attending a Christmas market are in your country in the first place — even as the familiar rituals of this latest vehicular misfortune emerged.
But relax. Malcolm Turnbull assured us an atrocity or 10 back that it is “a very, very small percentage” of the Muslim community who are “violent extremists”. Like other similarly soothing Western leaders, he never actually tells us what percentage it is — 1 per cent, 0.1, 0.0001 — but I’m sure he knows, or he wouldn’t say it so breezily, would he?
And at least our leaders are agreed it is a percentage. A percentage is a simple concept: If 0.001 per cent of the Muslim community are “violent extremists” and you have 100,000 Muslims, then, yes, it’s “a very, very small percentage” — and a small number. If you admit another 100,000 Muslims, you’ve doubled the number of “violent extremists”.
And, whether you keep on doing that year in year out or just cut to the chase and import (as Angela Merkel did) 1.5 million in one fell swoop, then, regardless of whether the percentage is stable, you are importing more and more people who want to kill your own citizens. Why? What’s the benefit? And why do people like that Birmingham tourist think the answer to more and more Muslims is more and more bollards?
I spent most of the last year in France and other parts of Western Europe and there are soldiers everywhere — outside churches, post offices, railway stations, shopping malls, Jewish schools initially and now non-Jewish schools, topless beaches and Christmas markets ... and it’s not enough, and it can never be enough. And even if it was, who wants to live like that?
A few hours before 12 German families had a big bloody hole blown through them a week before Christmas, my former editor at Canada’s National Post, Jonathan Kay, with his usual impeccable timing, decided to Tweet another condescending sneer at those simpletons who fret about where all this is heading: “Great @CBC180 discussion. Due to Mark Steyn-esque hysteria, Canadians think Canada is 17% Muslim. It’s actually 3%.”
Ha! What rubes, eh? You hick Aussies are no better: According to the same poll, you reckon Australia’s 12 per cent Muslim; it’s actually 2.4 per cent. So what’s the big deal?
As flattering as it is to be blamed for an entire nation’s Islamophobia, I’d say the reason Canadians and Australians — like the French and Germans and Belgians and almost everybody else — think there are more Muslims than there are is fairly obvious: Islam punches above its weight.
Even on days when they’re not mowing down Christmas shoppers and assassinating Russian ambassadors — or stabbing French priests, or blowing up Belgian airports, or sexually assaulting German New Year revellers, or storming Sydney coffee shops — the less incendiary news of Islam in the West nevertheless conveys an assertiveness and confidence that would still be impressive even if it were 17 per cent. By the time it actually is 17 per cent, you’ll think it’s 48.
Since we seem to be obsessing on percentages, I suppose 12 dead Germans is likewise an insignificant percentage, and far too trivial to sophisticates to warrant “Mark Steyn-esque hysteria”.
But it is December 22, and for the victims’ families in three days’ time that will be 100 per cent of their children or parents or boyfriends or girlfriends missing at the Christmas table.
Say a prayer for them: They died because of the recklessness of a Western political class that has doubled down on a mad longshot sociopolitical experiment that can only end catastrophically.--
Good idea, should have thought of that. I'm not a subscriber, it opens OK for me. But I'll take my link down if I can. Here's the copied transcript:
-- ON MY website last Saturday morning, I recalled a conversation I’d had in Germany over the summer with a lady who had “found herself on the receiving end of some vibrant multicultural outreach from one of Mutti Merkel’s boy charmers”.
I wrote: As a result, she no longer goes out after dark. She had also decided — with reluctance, because she enjoyed it — to cancel her participation in a local Christmas market, where she’d sung carols every year — in broad daylight.
“Why would you do that?” I asked.
“Because it’s Christmas,” she said, “and I’m worried Christmas will be a target.”
And I concluded: “Christmas markets are a grand German tradition, but probably not for much longer.”
Forty-eight hours later, 12 people were dead and 48 injured (at the time of writing) because they attended a Christmas market at Breitscheidplatz in Berlin. This BBC headline conveys the madness of our times — “Lorry kills 12 at Christmas market”.
Ah, so the truck did it. So it’s nothing that can’t be fixed by some basic truck control measures — like, say, licensing and registration of trucks. What a great idea.
Within moments, the familiar rituals of this latest vehicular misfortune emerged: “It was definitely deliberate,” said one intended victim. And as CNN reported:
“Witnesses told police the attacker had shouted out … ”
Go on, take a wild guess!
“… ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘Infidels must die’ as he carried out the attacks.”
The less obviously evasive responses were almost as dispiriting. An English tourist visiting from Birmingham complained that in his native city ugly bollards line the sidewalks to obstruct any similarly homicidal lorries.
The Christkindlmarkt is a German tradition dating back to the Middle Ages: Munich’s is over 700 years old.
A society that can only hold three-quarters-of-a-millennium-old traditions behind an impenetrable security perimeter is a society that will soon lose those traditions. My own preference is that, if free countries have to have unsightly security controls, why don’t they have them around the national borders rather than around every single thing inside those borders?
As I said on American radio a handful of mass slaughters ago: “I think this is insane when I listen to people say ‘Oh, we’re now going to have to have metal detectors in nightclubs, security in nightclubs’.”
Okay, so what happens next? They blow up a bakery, they blow up a little pastry shop, so then you’re gonna have to have metal detectors to get into the pastry shop?
“Instead of having all these individual perimeters around every Dunkin’ Donuts franchise or every gas station, or ever JC Penney, why not have just one big perimeter around the country? We could call it a border! And we could have, like, border security!”
But that’s just crazy talk. On Fox News’s top-rated Kelly File, guest host Martha MacCallum asked two experts about the Berlin carnage and both of them instantly pivoted to military strikes against IS, the need to form an Arab version of NATO, and other grand schemes. I’m all in favour of destroying IS, but IS is a mere symptom, not a cause.
After IS is destroyed, it’ll be something else. In many parts of the world, it’s already something else: al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, al-Shabaab, al-Nusra Front, al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, al-this, al-that, al-the other ...
Neither of MacCallum’s guests so much as raised the question of why people who want to murder you for attending a Christmas market are in your country in the first place — even as the familiar rituals of this latest vehicular misfortune emerged.
But relax. Malcolm Turnbull assured us an atrocity or 10 back that it is “a very, very small percentage” of the Muslim community who are “violent extremists”. Like other similarly soothing Western leaders, he never actually tells us what percentage it is — 1 per cent, 0.1, 0.0001 — but I’m sure he knows, or he wouldn’t say it so breezily, would he?
And at least our leaders are agreed it is a percentage. A percentage is a simple concept: If 0.001 per cent of the Muslim community are “violent extremists” and you have 100,000 Muslims, then, yes, it’s “a very, very small percentage” — and a small number. If you admit another 100,000 Muslims, you’ve doubled the number of “violent extremists”.
And, whether you keep on doing that year in year out or just cut to the chase and import (as Angela Merkel did) 1.5 million in one fell swoop, then, regardless of whether the percentage is stable, you are importing more and more people who want to kill your own citizens. Why? What’s the benefit? And why do people like that Birmingham tourist think the answer to more and more Muslims is more and more bollards?
I spent most of the last year in France and other parts of Western Europe and there are soldiers everywhere — outside churches, post offices, railway stations, shopping malls, Jewish schools initially and now non-Jewish schools, topless beaches and Christmas markets ... and it’s not enough, and it can never be enough. And even if it was, who wants to live like that?
A few hours before 12 German families had a big bloody hole blown through them a week before Christmas, my former editor at Canada’s National Post, Jonathan Kay, with his usual impeccable timing, decided to Tweet another condescending sneer at those simpletons who fret about where all this is heading: “Great @CBC180 discussion. Due to Mark Steyn-esque hysteria, Canadians think Canada is 17% Muslim. It’s actually 3%.”
Ha! What rubes, eh? You hick Aussies are no better: According to the same poll, you reckon Australia’s 12 per cent Muslim; it’s actually 2.4 per cent. So what’s the big deal?
As flattering as it is to be blamed for an entire nation’s Islamophobia, I’d say the reason Canadians and Australians — like the French and Germans and Belgians and almost everybody else — think there are more Muslims than there are is fairly obvious: Islam punches above its weight.
Even on days when they’re not mowing down Christmas shoppers and assassinating Russian ambassadors — or stabbing French priests, or blowing up Belgian airports, or sexually assaulting German New Year revellers, or storming Sydney coffee shops — the less incendiary news of Islam in the West nevertheless conveys an assertiveness and confidence that would still be impressive even if it were 17 per cent. By the time it actually is 17 per cent, you’ll think it’s 48.
Since we seem to be obsessing on percentages, I suppose 12 dead Germans is likewise an insignificant percentage, and far too trivial to sophisticates to warrant “Mark Steyn-esque hysteria”.
But it is December 22, and for the victims’ families in three days’ time that will be 100 per cent of their children or parents or boyfriends or girlfriends missing at the Christmas table.
Say a prayer for them: They died because of the recklessness of a Western political class that has doubled down on a mad longshot sociopolitical experiment that can only end catastrophically.--
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
They try to justify it by using the term "free speech" while at the same time denying free speech to anybody who disagrees with their right wing racist diatribe.
> It seems clear to me that the writer is a racist, and I'm wondering how the publication of such an incendiary viewpoint has become acceptable?
They try to justify it by using the term "free speech" while at the same time denying free speech to anybody who disagrees with their right wing racist diatribe.
7
13
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Where is this stuff? You've removed the link so I can't tell if it's on a mainstream site or not.
Where is this stuff? You've removed the link so I can't tell if it's on a mainstream site or not.
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
OK, I'll bite. Why do you think it is racist? Culturist perhaps, religionist perhaps, but it doesn't seem to be about race. And no, "Muslim" is not a race, "Islam" is a religion.
> It seems clear to me that the writer is a racist, ...
OK, I'll bite. Why do you think it is racist? Culturist perhaps, religionist perhaps, but it doesn't seem to be about race. And no, "Muslim" is not a race, "Islam" is a religion.
23
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
Not racist.
> -- ON MY website last Saturday morning, I recalled a conversation I’d had in Germany over the summer with a lady who had “found herself on the receiving end of some vibrant multicultural outreach from one of Mutti Merkel’s boy charmers”.
Not racist.
> I wrote: As a result, she no longer goes out after dark. She had also decided — with reluctance, because she enjoyed it — to cancel her participation in a local Christmas market, where she’d sung carols every year — in broad daylight.
Not racist.
> “Why would you do that?” I asked.
> “Because it’s Christmas,” she said, “and I’m worried Christmas will be a target.”
Not racist.
> And I concluded: “Christmas markets are a grand German tradition, but probably not for much longer.”
Not racist.
> Forty-eight hours later, 12 people were dead and 48 injured (at the time of writing) because they attended a Christmas market at Breitscheidplatz in Berlin. This BBC headline conveys the madness of our times — “Lorry kills 12 at Christmas market”.
Not racist.
> Ah, so the truck did it. So it’s nothing that can’t be fixed by some basic truck control measures — like, say, licensing and registration of trucks. What a great idea.
Not racist.
> Within moments, the familiar rituals of this latest vehicular misfortune emerged: “It was definitely deliberate,” said one intended victim. And as CNN reported:
> “Witnesses told police the attacker had shouted out … ”
> Go on, take a wild guess!
> “… ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘Infidels must die’ as he carried out the attacks.”
Not racist.
> The less obviously evasive responses were almost as dispiriting. An English tourist visiting from Birmingham complained that in his native city ugly bollards line the sidewalks to obstruct any similarly homicidal lorries.
Not racist.
> The Christkindlmarkt is a German tradition dating back to the Middle Ages: Munich’s is over 700 years old.
> A society that can only hold three-quarters-of-a-millennium-old traditions behind an impenetrable security perimeter is a society that will soon lose those traditions. My own preference is that, if free countries have to have unsightly security controls, why don’t they have them around the national borders rather than around every single thing inside those borders?
Not racist.
> As I said on American radio a handful of mass slaughters ago: “I think this is insane when I listen to people say ‘Oh, we’re now going to have to have metal detectors in nightclubs, security in nightclubs’.”
Not racist.
> Okay, so what happens next? They blow up a bakery, they blow up a little pastry shop, so then you’re gonna have to have metal detectors to get into the pastry shop?
Not racist.
> “Instead of having all these individual perimeters around every Dunkin’ Donuts franchise or every gas station, or ever JC Penney, why not have just one big perimeter around the country? We could call it a border! And we could have, like, border security!”
Not racist.
> But that’s just crazy talk. On Fox News’s top-rated Kelly File, guest host Martha MacCallum asked two experts about the Berlin carnage and both of them instantly pivoted to military strikes against IS, the need to form an Arab version of NATO, and other grand schemes. I’m all in favour of destroying IS, but IS is a mere symptom, not a cause.
Not racist.
> After IS is destroyed, it’ll be something else. In many parts of the world, it’s already something else: al-Qaeda, the Taliban, Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, al-Shabaab, al-Nusra Front, al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, al-this, al-that, al-the other ..
Not racist.
> Neither of MacCallum’s guests so much as raised the question of why people who want to murder you for attending a Christmas market are in your country in the first place — even as the familiar rituals of this latest vehicular misfortune emerged.
Not racist.
> But relax. Malcolm Turnbull assured us an atrocity or 10 back that it is “a very, very small percentage” of the Muslim community who are “violent extremists”. Like other similarly soothing Western leaders, he never actually tells us what percentage it is — 1 per cent, 0.1, 0.0001 — but I’m sure he knows, or he wouldn’t say it so breezily, would he?
Not racist.
> And at least our leaders are agreed it is a percentage. A percentage is a simple concept: If 0.001 per cent of the Muslim community are “violent extremists” and you have 100,000 Muslims, then, yes, it’s “a very, very small percentage” — and a small number. If you admit another 100,000 Muslims, you’ve doubled the number of “violent extremists”.
Not racist.
> And, whether you keep on doing that year in year out or just cut to the chase and import (as Angela Merkel did) 1.5 million in one fell swoop, then, regardless of whether the percentage is stable, you are importing more and more people who want to kill your own citizens. Why? What’s the benefit? And why do people like that Birmingham tourist think the answer to more and more Muslims is more and more bollards?
Not racist.
> I spent most of the last year in France and other parts of Western Europe and there are soldiers everywhere — outside churches, post offices, railway stations, shopping malls, Jewish schools initially and now non-Jewish schools, topless beaches and Christmas markets ... and it’s not enough, and it can never be enough. And even if it was, who wants to live like that?
Not racist.
> A few hours before 12 German families had a big bloody hole blown through them a week before Christmas, my former editor at Canada’s National Post, Jonathan Kay, with his usual impeccable timing, decided to Tweet another condescending sneer at those simpletons who fret about where all this is heading: “Great @CBC180 discussion. Due to Mark Steyn-esque hysteria, Canadians think Canada is 17% Muslim. It’s actually 3%.”
Not racist.
> Ha! What rubes, eh? You hick Aussies are no better: According to the same poll, you reckon Australia’s 12 per cent Muslim; it’s actually 2.4 per cent. So what’s the big deal?
Not racist.
> As flattering as it is to be blamed for an entire nation’s Islamophobia, I’d say the reason Canadians and Australians — like the French and Germans and Belgians and almost everybody else — think there are more Muslims than there are is fairly obvious: Islam punches above its weight.
Not racist.
> Even on days when they’re not mowing down Christmas shoppers and assassinating Russian ambassadors — or stabbing French priests, or blowing up Belgian airports, or sexually assaulting German New Year revellers, or storming Sydney coffee shops — the less incendiary news of Islam in the West nevertheless conveys an assertiveness and confidence that would still be impressive even if it were 17 per cent. By the time it actually is 17 per cent, you’ll think it’s 48.
Not racist.
> Since we seem to be obsessing on percentages, I suppose 12 dead Germans is likewise an insignificant percentage, and far too trivial to sophisticates to warrant “Mark Steyn-esque hysteria”.
Not racist.
> But it is December 22, and for the victims’ families in three days’ time that will be 100 per cent of their children or parents or boyfriends or girlfriends missing at the Christmas table.
Not racist.
> Say a prayer for them: They died because of the recklessness of a Western political class that has doubled down on a mad longshot sociopolitical experiment that can only end catastrophically.--
Not racist.
22
9
In reply to Coel Hellier:
The division between race and religion isn't quite as neat as that when the author says
> OK, I'll bite. Why do you think it is racist? Culturist perhaps, religionist perhaps, but it doesn't seem to be about race. And no, "Muslim" is not a race, "Islam" is a religion.
The division between race and religion isn't quite as neat as that when the author says
> if you cannot outbreed the enemy, cull 'em.
3
4
In reply to wbo:
The Herald Sun. It's a mainstream Aussie paper, run (perhaps unsurprisingly) by News Corp.
The writer is also a recipient of a News Corp sponsored award for excellence in journalism.
According to Wiki 'He has written for a wide range of publications, including the Jerusalem Post, Orange County Register, Chicago Sun-Times, National Review, The New York Sun, The Australian, Maclean's, The Irish Times, National Post, The Atlantic, Western Standard...'
He appears regularly on conservative mouthpiece shows such as The Rush Limbaugh Show, and other Fox News outlets.
The Herald Sun. It's a mainstream Aussie paper, run (perhaps unsurprisingly) by News Corp.
The writer is also a recipient of a News Corp sponsored award for excellence in journalism.
According to Wiki 'He has written for a wide range of publications, including the Jerusalem Post, Orange County Register, Chicago Sun-Times, National Review, The New York Sun, The Australian, Maclean's, The Irish Times, National Post, The Atlantic, Western Standard...'
He appears regularly on conservative mouthpiece shows such as The Rush Limbaugh Show, and other Fox News outlets.
3
3
1
7
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
It is free speech.
You can't be racist against a religion. A religion is made up of many races. Is it religionist to dislike Islam?
Is it racist to dislike Islam but like a Muslim?
Having a border and controlling immigration isn't about race.
You know what annoys me more? Is people like you who spout off your regressive left BS and suddenly turn into the biggest apologist and somehow turn the distract from the situation and immediately turn your back on the dead, dying and maimed, in favour of your politically correct, backwards ideals.
Christ, the dead are still warm and you lefties are already jumping on the apologist band wagon. No doubt got some Facebook post about solidarity, that will do fuck all but make you feel all special and like you have done something, when in reality you have done fuck all.
It is free speech.
You can't be racist against a religion. A religion is made up of many races. Is it religionist to dislike Islam?
Is it racist to dislike Islam but like a Muslim?
Having a border and controlling immigration isn't about race.
You know what annoys me more? Is people like you who spout off your regressive left BS and suddenly turn into the biggest apologist and somehow turn the distract from the situation and immediately turn your back on the dead, dying and maimed, in favour of your politically correct, backwards ideals.
Christ, the dead are still warm and you lefties are already jumping on the apologist band wagon. No doubt got some Facebook post about solidarity, that will do fuck all but make you feel all special and like you have done something, when in reality you have done fuck all.
Post edited at 12:48
33
16
In reply to Bootrock:
What an excellent and well considered response. Thank you for your deep focus and exploration of the careful minutiae of the writer's words, along with your utter failure to comprehend their intent. Well done you.
Edited: this is a response to your first reply.
What an excellent and well considered response. Thank you for your deep focus and exploration of the careful minutiae of the writer's words, along with your utter failure to comprehend their intent. Well done you.
Edited: this is a response to your first reply.
Post edited at 12:48
10
14
In reply to Bootrock:
That diatribe says far more about you than it does about me.
> You know what annoys me more? Is people like you who spout off your regressive left BS and suddenly turn into the biggest apologist and somehow turn the distract from the situation and immediately turn your back on the dead, dying and maimed, in favour of your politically correct, backwards ideals.
> Christ, the dead are still warm and you lefties are already jumping on the apologist band wagon. No doubt got some Facebook post about solidarity, that will do f*ck all but make you feel all special and like you have done something, when in reality you have done f*ck all.
That diatribe says far more about you than it does about me.
16
19
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
No worries mate. whenever there's a special snowflake needing melted, or a regressive left wet lettuce needing a bubble burst, I will be there. You just give uncle boots a shout.
> What an excellent and well considered response. Thank you for your deep focus and exploration of the careful minutiae of the writer's words, along with your utter failure to comprehend their intent. Well done you.
> Edited: this is a response to your first reply.
No worries mate. whenever there's a special snowflake needing melted, or a regressive left wet lettuce needing a bubble burst, I will be there. You just give uncle boots a shout.
19
13
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
The distinction is important. And are you really wanting to disallow any mainstream discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of mass immigration? Or is even suggesting that there may be drawbacks "racist"?
> Semantics, really. Let's cut to the chase.
The distinction is important. And are you really wanting to disallow any mainstream discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of mass immigration? Or is even suggesting that there may be drawbacks "racist"?
17
1
1
2
In reply to Rylstone_Cowboy:
Yea, it says I don't have my head up my arse.
> That diatribe says far more about you than it does about me.
Yea, it says I don't have my head up my arse.
21
9
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Coel it's disingenuous to pretend that there's no racist element to this. The majority of subscribers to the Islamic faith are black and brown, so let's not mince our words: you're being pedantic.
Here's an article you'll find helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
Coel it's disingenuous to pretend that there's no racist element to this. The majority of subscribers to the Islamic faith are black and brown, so let's not mince our words: you're being pedantic.
Here's an article you'll find helpful:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
1
19
In reply to Coel Hellier:
No. Where did I suggest this?
There's a huge difference between having constructive and robust dialogue on a difficult issue, and being racist. Sensible discussion is, well, sensible, I'm sure you'd agree. But the writer is using hysterical dialogue and a number of gross non-sequiturs to attempt to prove his distorted and hate-filled views. I'm not 'disallowing' discussion for god's sake, and your assertion that I am sounds like apologism for the kinds of viewpoints the above writer makes.
> are you really wanting to disallow any mainstream discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of mass immigration? Or is even suggesting that there may be drawbacks "racist"?
No. Where did I suggest this?
There's a huge difference between having constructive and robust dialogue on a difficult issue, and being racist. Sensible discussion is, well, sensible, I'm sure you'd agree. But the writer is using hysterical dialogue and a number of gross non-sequiturs to attempt to prove his distorted and hate-filled views. I'm not 'disallowing' discussion for god's sake, and your assertion that I am sounds like apologism for the kinds of viewpoints the above writer makes.
1
10
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
It's got nothing to do with race, there's plenty of black Christian around the globe. And Christianity is based on people from the Middle East?
If I hate Christianity too, are you saying I am racist?
Why am I not allowed to disagree with religion?
Can yo be christianiphobic?
Can you be religionphobic?
What makes Islam different to anything else and above criticism or disagreement?
Can I like a Muslim but dislike Islam?
It's bollocks. That's what it is. I dislike all religion, does that mean I am an islamaphobe?
> Coel it's disingenuous to pretend that there's no racist element to this. The majority of subscribers to the Islamic faith are black and brown, so let's not mince our words: you're being pedantic.
It's got nothing to do with race, there's plenty of black Christian around the globe. And Christianity is based on people from the Middle East?
If I hate Christianity too, are you saying I am racist?
> Here's an article you'll find helpful:
Why am I not allowed to disagree with religion?
Can yo be christianiphobic?
Can you be religionphobic?
What makes Islam different to anything else and above criticism or disagreement?
Can I like a Muslim but dislike Islam?
It's bollocks. That's what it is. I dislike all religion, does that mean I am an islamaphobe?
Post edited at 13:01
17
2
In reply to Bootrock:
I think it's about the 'othering' of Muslims, by talking about the need to out breed (or kill) them - it implies they're some kind of potentially growing threat which the wider population needs to be wary of.
Look at it again from that perspective...
I think it's about the 'othering' of Muslims, by talking about the need to out breed (or kill) them - it implies they're some kind of potentially growing threat which the wider population needs to be wary of.
Look at it again from that perspective...
Post edited at 13:06
8
6
In reply to Timmd:
Well I don't see many Sikhs cutting people's heads off in our streets.
I don't see many Buddhists driving trucks down streets of families and kids?
A threat, like the slaughtering of Christians in Egypt?
A threat like Paris attacks? 7/7? Berlin?
You mean a perspective like this?
youtube.com/watch?v=ndQqweP5vac&
> I think it's about the othering of Muslims, by talking about the need to out breed them - it implies they're some kind of potentially growing threat which the wider population needs to be wary of.
> implies they're some kind of threat
Well I don't see many Sikhs cutting people's heads off in our streets.
I don't see many Buddhists driving trucks down streets of families and kids?
A threat, like the slaughtering of Christians in Egypt?
A threat like Paris attacks? 7/7? Berlin?
> Look at it again from that perspective...
You mean a perspective like this?
youtube.com/watch?v=ndQqweP5vac&
Post edited at 13:09
7
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
No, sorry, it is not pedantry, it is crucially important point. Criticising **ideas** and idea-systems such as communism, Islam, fascism, etc, is not the same as condemning **people**.
The vast majority of people in communist nations today are Chinese. Does that make it racist to criticise communism? The vast majority of Nazi supporters were Germans. Does that make it racist to criticise Naziism?
The concept of "Islamophobia" was created by Islamists as a method to try to disallow criticism of Islam (the religion). It is deliberately blurring the distinction between ideas and people, so that whenever Islam (the religion) gets criticised the "useful idiots" of the Western "regressive left" can fall about saying "ooh you racist!".
You seem to have swallowed the Islamists propaganda uncritically.
> The majority of subscribers to the Islamic faith are black and brown, so let's not mince our words: you're being pedantic.
No, sorry, it is not pedantry, it is crucially important point. Criticising **ideas** and idea-systems such as communism, Islam, fascism, etc, is not the same as condemning **people**.
The vast majority of people in communist nations today are Chinese. Does that make it racist to criticise communism? The vast majority of Nazi supporters were Germans. Does that make it racist to criticise Naziism?
> Here's an article you'll find helpful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
The concept of "Islamophobia" was created by Islamists as a method to try to disallow criticism of Islam (the religion). It is deliberately blurring the distinction between ideas and people, so that whenever Islam (the religion) gets criticised the "useful idiots" of the Western "regressive left" can fall about saying "ooh you racist!".
You seem to have swallowed the Islamists propaganda uncritically.
37
1
In reply to Bootrock:
Are you implying that all Muslims are like that?
Such a belief would make one have feelings of hate or mistrust of anybody who was visibly a Muslim, before actually finding out what they actually think - ie their actual character as a person.
> You mean a perspective like this?
Are you implying that all Muslims are like that?
Such a belief would make one have feelings of hate or mistrust of anybody who was visibly a Muslim, before actually finding out what they actually think - ie their actual character as a person.
Post edited at 13:13
2
4
In reply to Coel Hellier:
To make that distinction fairly, you've got to be honest about the motivations of the author here. The guy's a racist. What's written in the recent article isn't explicitly racist, but the quote about "outbreeding" is.
So, we've got a racist author going on a diatribe against Muslims, painting them as an existential threat to white societies. I guess you can describe that as "discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of mass immigration" - but you're giving a lot more than the benefit of the doubt, in fact you're aligning yourself with some pretty dark views there. Which of course you are free to do...
> The distinction is important. And are you really wanting to disallow any mainstream discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of mass immigration? Or is even suggesting that there may be drawbacks "racist"?
To make that distinction fairly, you've got to be honest about the motivations of the author here. The guy's a racist. What's written in the recent article isn't explicitly racist, but the quote about "outbreeding" is.
So, we've got a racist author going on a diatribe against Muslims, painting them as an existential threat to white societies. I guess you can describe that as "discussion about the benefits and drawbacks of mass immigration" - but you're giving a lot more than the benefit of the doubt, in fact you're aligning yourself with some pretty dark views there. Which of course you are free to do...
10
6
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
You suggested that with your "ooh you racist!" reaction to the article.
So can you make an actual substantive critique of the article, saying what you think is wrong with it, as opposed to just falling about saying "ooh you racist!"?
Are you really sure of that? Do you accept that we should have a sensible discussion about the fraction of extremist views within the recent waves of immigration into Europe? Or do you want to disallow that topic?
> No. Where did I suggest this?
You suggested that with your "ooh you racist!" reaction to the article.
> But the writer is using hysterical dialogue and a number of gross non-sequiturs to attempt to prove his distorted and hate-filled views.
So can you make an actual substantive critique of the article, saying what you think is wrong with it, as opposed to just falling about saying "ooh you racist!"?
> I'm not 'disallowing' discussion for god's sake,
Are you really sure of that? Do you accept that we should have a sensible discussion about the fraction of extremist views within the recent waves of immigration into Europe? Or do you want to disallow that topic?
8
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Racist:
having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
You can't be racist towards a religion, a religion is a faith (belief without proof) held by many races.
Racist:
having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.
You can't be racist towards a religion, a religion is a faith (belief without proof) held by many races.
7
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
And where in that article, or in the quote from the author's book, is he *not* condemning Muslim people???
> No, sorry, it is not pedantry, it is crucially important point. Criticising **ideas** and idea-systems such as communism, Islam, fascism, etc, is not the same as condemning **people**.
And where in that article, or in the quote from the author's book, is he *not* condemning Muslim people???
6
In reply to Timmd:
Are you implying that anyone who dislikes religion is a "racist"?
I find nothing wrong with judging a book by its cover until it proves otherwise? As I would with anyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or age.
> Are you implying that all Muslims are like that?
Are you implying that anyone who dislikes religion is a "racist"?
> Such a belief would make one have feelings of hate or mistrust of anybody who was visibly a Muslim, before actually finding out what they actually think - ie their actual character as a person.
I find nothing wrong with judging a book by its cover until it proves otherwise? As I would with anyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or age.
5
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Well, I'm purely judging the article as extensively copied above. I don't know the writer or other things he has written. (He may well be a racist with extremist views.)
> The guy's a racist. What's written in the recent article isn't explicitly racist,
Well, I'm purely judging the article as extensively copied above. I don't know the writer or other things he has written. (He may well be a racist with extremist views.)
2
1
In reply to Bootrock:
Not at all. I'm completely agreeing that it isn't racist to dislike what is in a religion. I am a lefty - and I think you're absolutely right.
Don't you understand that, in any group one will find a mixture of people (and characters), meaning that it's very easy to be wrong - if only judging on first appearances?
Some people follow the negative things in religions, and other people, who are more peaceful and loving as personalities - or in character, will follow what's more positive*.
* Which is why one should judge people on their character, in my opinion.
If you can argue why this isn't a more accurate way of judging people, please post why.
> Are you implying that anyone who dislikes religion is a "racist"?
Not at all. I'm completely agreeing that it isn't racist to dislike what is in a religion. I am a lefty - and I think you're absolutely right.
> I find nothing wrong with judging a book by its cover until it proves otherwise? As I would with anyone, regardless of race, religion, gender or age.
Don't you understand that, in any group one will find a mixture of people (and characters), meaning that it's very easy to be wrong - if only judging on first appearances?
Some people follow the negative things in religions, and other people, who are more peaceful and loving as personalities - or in character, will follow what's more positive*.
* Which is why one should judge people on their character, in my opinion.
If you can argue why this isn't a more accurate way of judging people, please post why.
Post edited at 13:47
3
4
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
He is pointing to the extremist fraction within the Muslim community. Are you trying to suggest that there is no such thing?
If you go to many Muslim-majority nations such as Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, etc, you can find large numbers with extremist Islamist views who reject many Western liberal values. What makes you think there won't be significant numbers of such people within waves of immigrants?
> And where in that article, or in the quote from the author's book, is he *not* condemning Muslim people???
He is pointing to the extremist fraction within the Muslim community. Are you trying to suggest that there is no such thing?
If you go to many Muslim-majority nations such as Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, etc, you can find large numbers with extremist Islamist views who reject many Western liberal values. What makes you think there won't be significant numbers of such people within waves of immigrants?
12
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Trouble is, a lot of western society has broken from the shackles of religion, importing over a million muslims into Germany was always going to be problematic. Integration is virtually impossible as Merkel has admitted and been quite vocal about it in Germany
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/14/angela-merkel-...
So expect a lot more of these "dark views" because it's a pretty natural, atavistic reaction to unwanted change.
Trouble is, a lot of western society has broken from the shackles of religion, importing over a million muslims into Germany was always going to be problematic. Integration is virtually impossible as Merkel has admitted and been quite vocal about it in Germany
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/14/angela-merkel-...
So expect a lot more of these "dark views" because it's a pretty natural, atavistic reaction to unwanted change.
5
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
What I still can't understand in a world where a huge amount of people are educated we still listen to people of any religion. It's like listening to the person who believes in fairies, say that goblins are not real. They are both nuts. I think we will be viewed as pretty dim for not booting religion out of all aspects of government and education when folk look back at us in a few hundred years time.
What I still can't understand in a world where a huge amount of people are educated we still listen to people of any religion. It's like listening to the person who believes in fairies, say that goblins are not real. They are both nuts. I think we will be viewed as pretty dim for not booting religion out of all aspects of government and education when folk look back at us in a few hundred years time.
13
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Only much of Europe hasn't left religion behind. Many live by the Pope's word, many of the former eastern block countries are anti gay, abortions etc.. because of religious roots. Irish lassies travel to the UK for abortions all the time because they are banned by a predominantly religious government in Ireland. The UK lords has Bishops automatically appointed. A US president would lose a huge amount of votes if they didn't portray themselves as Christian, whilst also trying to please the Jews/Israel at the same time.
> Trouble is, a lot of western society has broken from the shackles of religion, importing over a million muslims into Germany was always going to be problematic.
Only much of Europe hasn't left religion behind. Many live by the Pope's word, many of the former eastern block countries are anti gay, abortions etc.. because of religious roots. Irish lassies travel to the UK for abortions all the time because they are banned by a predominantly religious government in Ireland. The UK lords has Bishops automatically appointed. A US president would lose a huge amount of votes if they didn't portray themselves as Christian, whilst also trying to please the Jews/Israel at the same time.
9
In reply to Jon Stewart:
You see, for reasons listed in previous threads I think this kind of assumption is pretty dangerous in itself.
I'm with Coel on this one.
> To make that distinction fairly, you've got to be honest about the motivations of the author here. The guy's a racist. What's written in the recent article isn't explicitly racist, but the quote about "outbreeding" is.
You see, for reasons listed in previous threads I think this kind of assumption is pretty dangerous in itself.
I'm with Coel on this one.
3
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
If Islamophobia is a concept created by Islamists, how would you describe someone spitting at a Muslim woman in the street and shouting "terrorist"? Does it make a difference whether you call this "Islamophobia" or "anti-Muslim hatred"? Or don't we need to talk about it because it doesn't exist or doesn't matter?
> The concept of "Islamophobia" was created by Islamists as a method to try to disallow criticism of Islam (the religion). It is deliberately blurring the distinction between ideas and people, so that whenever Islam (the religion) gets criticised the "useful idiots" of the Western "regressive left" can fall about saying "ooh you racist!".
> You seem to have swallowed the Islamists propaganda uncritically.
If Islamophobia is a concept created by Islamists, how would you describe someone spitting at a Muslim woman in the street and shouting "terrorist"? Does it make a difference whether you call this "Islamophobia" or "anti-Muslim hatred"? Or don't we need to talk about it because it doesn't exist or doesn't matter?
5
8
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
And if you want to talk about borders and immigration, why Isn't there an outrage at the closed borders of the Arab States? Why aren't they willing to take on and help their Muslim brothers?
And if you want to talk about borders and immigration, why Isn't there an outrage at the closed borders of the Arab States? Why aren't they willing to take on and help their Muslim brothers?
5
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I think it was a huge mistake by the left to try and control debate by categorisation, declaration of 'unacceptability' and laws rather than engaging with them and using facts and logic. To some extent what we are seeing now is the result of this. You don't win arguments by determining something is 'racist' and therefore the debate is over and the person who said it should be jailed, all that happens is people keep their views to themselves and then vote for Brexit or Trump. The mainstream isn't where the left convinced itself it was when Labour and the Democrats were in power, pretending it is isn't going to move it back.
Assuming the figures in the quote are true (and they may well not be) if the Muslim population of Bosnia actually increased from 26 to 44% in 30 years that sounds like a problem for non-muslims. In a democracy that trend is going to lead fairly quickly to a muslim majority of voters and laws that are influenced by Islam. So the left needs to engage with the issue and either show that the premise is incorrect or provide a non-violent mechanism to address it or say it must be accepted because the solution is worse than the problem. What it can't do is throw up its hands, declare the argument 'racist' and walk away.
I think it was a huge mistake by the left to try and control debate by categorisation, declaration of 'unacceptability' and laws rather than engaging with them and using facts and logic. To some extent what we are seeing now is the result of this. You don't win arguments by determining something is 'racist' and therefore the debate is over and the person who said it should be jailed, all that happens is people keep their views to themselves and then vote for Brexit or Trump. The mainstream isn't where the left convinced itself it was when Labour and the Democrats were in power, pretending it is isn't going to move it back.
Assuming the figures in the quote are true (and they may well not be) if the Muslim population of Bosnia actually increased from 26 to 44% in 30 years that sounds like a problem for non-muslims. In a democracy that trend is going to lead fairly quickly to a muslim majority of voters and laws that are influenced by Islam. So the left needs to engage with the issue and either show that the premise is incorrect or provide a non-violent mechanism to address it or say it must be accepted because the solution is worse than the problem. What it can't do is throw up its hands, declare the argument 'racist' and walk away.
10
In reply to Coel Hellier:
The piece in the OP was a clear reference to crimes against humanity and seemingly a call to genocide. I have no idea who wrote it or where it was published, but it seems a pretty good example of why free speech should be limited. Do you remember the way Hutu extremists used Rwandan radio in the run up to the genocide there? "Cull 'em" when we are talking about friends, neighbours, coworkers etc. sounds a bit too reminiscent of that.
I wouldn't expect to find that in a mainstream publication.
The piece in the OP was a clear reference to crimes against humanity and seemingly a call to genocide. I have no idea who wrote it or where it was published, but it seems a pretty good example of why free speech should be limited. Do you remember the way Hutu extremists used Rwandan radio in the run up to the genocide there? "Cull 'em" when we are talking about friends, neighbours, coworkers etc. sounds a bit too reminiscent of that.
I wouldn't expect to find that in a mainstream publication.
11
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Quite clearly there's a conversation to be had, over how and in what way we integrate immigrants. But that doesn't mean there should be a special and untouchable safe space for discriminatory views to flourish.
I notice you're keen to pick up on my possibly incorrect terminology, while failing to condemn the writer for his obviously divisive and inflammatory rhetoric: as such it seems to me that you've swallowed right-wing propaganda uncritically.
We have an obvious example of hate writing, published in a mainstream rag. Would you genuinely be happy for your children to read this type of horrid rhetoric, written by an author who snidely suggests the 'culling' of a particular group of people? I suspect not - in which case let's get off the issue of my terminology, and back on to the issue raised namely the place of the media in inciting racist / religionist / 'otherist' hatred. No?
Quite clearly there's a conversation to be had, over how and in what way we integrate immigrants. But that doesn't mean there should be a special and untouchable safe space for discriminatory views to flourish.
I notice you're keen to pick up on my possibly incorrect terminology, while failing to condemn the writer for his obviously divisive and inflammatory rhetoric: as such it seems to me that you've swallowed right-wing propaganda uncritically.
We have an obvious example of hate writing, published in a mainstream rag. Would you genuinely be happy for your children to read this type of horrid rhetoric, written by an author who snidely suggests the 'culling' of a particular group of people? I suspect not - in which case let's get off the issue of my terminology, and back on to the issue raised namely the place of the media in inciting racist / religionist / 'otherist' hatred. No?
8
5
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Is there any reason you're excluding the quote in the OP from your assessment?
> Well, I'm purely judging the article as extensively copied above. I don't know the writer or other things he has written. (He may well be a racist with extremist views.)
Is there any reason you're excluding the quote in the OP from your assessment?
3
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
And the quote in the op? How do you feel about that, on the "we need to be able to discuss ideas" versus "condemning people" spectrum? Labelling Muslims as the enemy who need to either be outbred or culled?
> Well, I'm purely judging the article as extensively copied above. I don't know the writer or other things he has written. (He may well be a racist with extremist views.)
And the quote in the op? How do you feel about that, on the "we need to be able to discuss ideas" versus "condemning people" spectrum? Labelling Muslims as the enemy who need to either be outbred or culled?
4
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Would you call someone spitting at a Jew a 'Judaophobic'? Why does Islam get a special term when in recent history the Jews have had a far worse time of it that Muslims?
People will hate. And that hate will often be misplaced. It doesn't need a label to be condemned or 'talked about'.
> If Islamophobia is a concept created by Islamists, how would you describe someone spitting at a Muslim woman in the street and shouting "terrorist"? Does it make a difference whether you call this "Islamophobia" or "anti-Muslim hatred"? Or don't we need to talk about it because it doesn't exist or doesn't matter?
Would you call someone spitting at a Jew a 'Judaophobic'? Why does Islam get a special term when in recent history the Jews have had a far worse time of it that Muslims?
People will hate. And that hate will often be misplaced. It doesn't need a label to be condemned or 'talked about'.
Post edited at 13:30
5
1
In reply to TobyA:
Nailed the point, thank you. Just to be clear, Steyn's 'cull' phrase is from his book 'America Alone', and not the article I linked originally.
Nailed the point, thank you. Just to be clear, Steyn's 'cull' phrase is from his book 'America Alone', and not the article I linked originally.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
What is it when a Muslim attacks a white European because they aren't Muslim?
What about when a Muslim ploughs a truck through families and children because they hold different religious values, traditions, culture and western ideals?
> If Islamophobia is a concept created by Islamists, how would you describe someone spitting at a Muslim woman in the street and shouting "terrorist"? Does it make a difference whether you call this "Islamophobia" or "anti-Muslim hatred"? Or don't we need to talk about it because it doesn't exist or doesn't matter?
What is it when a Muslim attacks a white European because they aren't Muslim?
What about when a Muslim ploughs a truck through families and children because they hold different religious values, traditions, culture and western ideals?
8
1
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
I don't get it. The guy writes
"In a democratic age, you can't buck demography—except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out, as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you cannot outbreed the enemy, cull 'em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia's demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent."
and I reach the conclusion that he's a racist. I don't understand how that's dangerous.
> You see, for reasons listed in previous threads I think this kind of assumption is pretty dangerous in itself.
I don't get it. The guy writes
"In a democratic age, you can't buck demography—except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out, as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you cannot outbreed the enemy, cull 'em. The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia's demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent."
and I reach the conclusion that he's a racist. I don't understand how that's dangerous.
2
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I'd go with anti-Muslim bigotry. (By the way, how often do you think this sort of thing happens?)
Yes, the difference matters. First, because of the distinction between being anti *Muslim* (Muslims are people) and anti Islam (Islam is a religion, an idea-system). Again, the distinction does actually matter.
Second, because the word "phobia" implies an *irrational* fear of something. There is nothing irrational about disliking Islam and considering Islam to be harmful and dangerous. "Fearing" the influence of Islam on the world is a legitimate and rational position, not a "phobia". Do people opposed to communism or Naziism or fascism ever get accused of being "phobic"?
The word "Islamophobia" is thus the wrong one to use, and indeed it was designed deliberately as a an attempt to disallow criticism of religion.
> ... how would you describe someone spitting at a Muslim woman in the street and shouting "terrorist"?
I'd go with anti-Muslim bigotry. (By the way, how often do you think this sort of thing happens?)
> Does it make a difference whether you call this "Islamophobia" or "anti-Muslim hatred"?
Yes, the difference matters. First, because of the distinction between being anti *Muslim* (Muslims are people) and anti Islam (Islam is a religion, an idea-system). Again, the distinction does actually matter.
Second, because the word "phobia" implies an *irrational* fear of something. There is nothing irrational about disliking Islam and considering Islam to be harmful and dangerous. "Fearing" the influence of Islam on the world is a legitimate and rational position, not a "phobia". Do people opposed to communism or Naziism or fascism ever get accused of being "phobic"?
The word "Islamophobia" is thus the wrong one to use, and indeed it was designed deliberately as a an attempt to disallow criticism of religion.
10
1
In reply to Bootrock:
It's a religiously motivated attack.
It's Islamic terrorism. What do you think it is? What's your point?
> What is it when a Muslim attacks a white European because they aren't Muslim?
It's a religiously motivated attack.
> What about when a Muslim ploughs a truck through families and children because they hold different religious values, traditions, culture and western ideals?
It's Islamic terrorism. What do you think it is? What's your point?
4
2
In reply to AJM:
I don't agree with that quote, and wouldn't want it in a mainstream newspaper (and I don't think it was?). Again, my comments are about the lengthy article quoted.
> And the quote in the op? How do you feel about that, on the "we need to be able to discuss ideas" versus "condemning people" spectrum? Labelling Muslims as the enemy who need to either be outbred or culled?
I don't agree with that quote, and wouldn't want it in a mainstream newspaper (and I don't think it was?). Again, my comments are about the lengthy article quoted.
2
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
You missed it.
> It's a religiously motivated attack.
> It's Islamic terrorism. What do you think it is? What's your point?
You missed it.
2
4
In reply to summo:
Actually you make a good point, I still feel a lot of western society is becoming more secular over time though (I don't have any proof, just my perception...so could well be wrong).
Actually you make a good point, I still feel a lot of western society is becoming more secular over time though (I don't have any proof, just my perception...so could well be wrong).
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I have little time right now however please take a read of my comments in this thread. http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=653003&v=1#x8431982
A brief summary...
To call this guy racist basically tars him with the same brush as the average guy down the pub who has been called a racist for wanting tighter border controls. Neither of the things that have been said here are inherently racist, but now these two groups of people are lumped together essentially as one. They feel their enemy views them both the same... an the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
This is a super condensed, rough around the edges, version of the what I wrote about before.
I personally feel labels are the reason Brexit went the way it did and the reason Trump soon to be the most powerful man in the free world.
I argue we should just call it what it is... an idiotic and callous opinion based on misinformation. Not simply 'racist'.
I have little time right now however please take a read of my comments in this thread. http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=653003&v=1#x8431982
A brief summary...
To call this guy racist basically tars him with the same brush as the average guy down the pub who has been called a racist for wanting tighter border controls. Neither of the things that have been said here are inherently racist, but now these two groups of people are lumped together essentially as one. They feel their enemy views them both the same... an the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
This is a super condensed, rough around the edges, version of the what I wrote about before.
I personally feel labels are the reason Brexit went the way it did and the reason Trump soon to be the most powerful man in the free world.
I argue we should just call it what it is... an idiotic and callous opinion based on misinformation. Not simply 'racist'.
4
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
It would be interesting to know how this debate would have transpired had you omitted this " cull " quote from your OP and kept it just on the article
It would be interesting to know how this debate would have transpired had you omitted this " cull " quote from your OP and kept it just on the article
1
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I think your point is totally academic. "Homophobia" probably isn't the best word for anti-gay hatred, but it's the one we've got.
About 800 incidents in a year in London reported to the Met. Probably happens quite a lot!
I think your point is totally academic. "Homophobia" probably isn't the best word for anti-gay hatred, but it's the one we've got.
> (By the way, how often do you think this sort of thing happens?)
About 800 incidents in a year in London reported to the Met. Probably happens quite a lot!
5
2
3
2
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Thanks for providing an excellent illustration of a point.
If the Jewish person is being spat upon because of their religion, the correct description of the perpetrator is 'anti-semite'. It's a well-established term: 'hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group'.
Why should an equivalent term not exist for Muslims? Or for Christians or people of any group who find themselves in a discriminated minority? The problem here in the West is now large enough, with sufficient polarised opinion, for 'Islamophobia' or discrimination against Muslims in particular, to be a recognised phenomenon, with a wide spread of negative outcomes ranging from torture and murder, to discrimination in the workplace.
Thanks for providing an excellent illustration of a point.
> Would you call someone spitting at a Jew 'Judaophobia', or ignorant and rude? I'd go for the latter
If the Jewish person is being spat upon because of their religion, the correct description of the perpetrator is 'anti-semite'. It's a well-established term: 'hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group'.
Why should an equivalent term not exist for Muslims? Or for Christians or people of any group who find themselves in a discriminated minority? The problem here in the West is now large enough, with sufficient polarised opinion, for 'Islamophobia' or discrimination against Muslims in particular, to be a recognised phenomenon, with a wide spread of negative outcomes ranging from torture and murder, to discrimination in the workplace.
2
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
There is no good and rational reason to fear gay people. Therefore fear/hatred of them *is* a phobia.
Whereas there *are* good reasons to regard Islam as a highly damaging idea system and to fear its influence on the world. Therefore opposition to it is *not* a phobia.
Though whenever I've looked into such claims, a vast fraction of the "incidents" turn out to be too minor to amount to anything (e.g. someone said something on twitter, which is very different from being spat on in the street). If you have solid evidence of the prevalence of such incidents I'd be pleased to read about it.
> I think your point is totally academic. "Homophobia" probably isn't the best word for anti-gay hatred, but it's the one we've got.
There is no good and rational reason to fear gay people. Therefore fear/hatred of them *is* a phobia.
Whereas there *are* good reasons to regard Islam as a highly damaging idea system and to fear its influence on the world. Therefore opposition to it is *not* a phobia.
> About 800 incidents in a year in London reported to the Met. Probably happens quite a lot!
Though whenever I've looked into such claims, a vast fraction of the "incidents" turn out to be too minor to amount to anything (e.g. someone said something on twitter, which is very different from being spat on in the street). If you have solid evidence of the prevalence of such incidents I'd be pleased to read about it.
3
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Had you not read it until just now? That would explain the total lack of link-through between the two - from the first it becomes clear what the guys motivations are and I think you've been considering the second in a far more isolated manner than some of the other posters.
Having the background on the authors motivations provided by the first I would find it more of a challenge to defend the second in the way that you have because I'd struggle to take such a theoretical and disconnected view to defend someone like that.
Had you not read it until just now? That would explain the total lack of link-through between the two - from the first it becomes clear what the guys motivations are and I think you've been considering the second in a far more isolated manner than some of the other posters.
Having the background on the authors motivations provided by the first I would find it more of a challenge to defend the second in the way that you have because I'd struggle to take such a theoretical and disconnected view to defend someone like that.
2
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
What's your solution then Coel?
> He is pointing to the extremist fraction within the Muslim community. Are you trying to suggest that there is no such thing?
> If you go to many Muslim-majority nations such as Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, etc, you can find large numbers with extremist Islamist views who reject many Western liberal values. What makes you think there won't be significant numbers of such people within waves of immigrants?
What's your solution then Coel?
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Note one big difference. Would an anti-semite be against a Jew who was non-religious and secular? Yes he would.
Would someone opposed to Islam be against someone from an Islamic background who had renounced Islam and was totally secular and non-religious (or held to the moderate versions of Islam such as the Ahmadis)? No, he wouldn't.
That's the difference between being racist, or against people because of their birth, and being against in idea system such as Islam.
> the correct description of the perpetrator is 'anti-semite'.
Note one big difference. Would an anti-semite be against a Jew who was non-religious and secular? Yes he would.
Would someone opposed to Islam be against someone from an Islamic background who had renounced Islam and was totally secular and non-religious (or held to the moderate versions of Islam such as the Ahmadis)? No, he wouldn't.
That's the difference between being racist, or against people because of their birth, and being against in idea system such as Islam.
9
1
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
I am surprised you havent heard of "antisemitism" since it is rather well known term.
> Would you call someone spitting at a Jew a 'Judaophobic'? Why does Islam get a special term when in recent history the Jews have had a far worse time of it that Muslims?
I am surprised you havent heard of "antisemitism" since it is rather well known term.
3
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You sure about that? Bearing in mind Sikhs have been assaulted for being "muslim".
> Would someone opposed to Islam be against someone from an Islamic background who had renounced Islam and was totally secular and non-religious (or held to the moderate versions of Islam such as the Ahmadis)? No, he wouldn't.
You sure about that? Bearing in mind Sikhs have been assaulted for being "muslim".
4
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I don't know. I don't claim to have a solution. I do think that recognising the issue is an important first step.
One solution: I would not allow schools run by religious groups, and would try to avoid schools where children are segregated according to their parents' religion. Schools should be secular and promote liberal values. They should not be there to reinforce the religion of the parents.
> What's your solution then Coel?
I don't know. I don't claim to have a solution. I do think that recognising the issue is an important first step.
One solution: I would not allow schools run by religious groups, and would try to avoid schools where children are segregated according to their parents' religion. Schools should be secular and promote liberal values. They should not be there to reinforce the religion of the parents.
12
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Out of interest, is it a phobia if I'm pretty terrified that actual proper fascists are coming very close to taking over large chunks of Europe and America on the back of a largely anti-islamic platform while "useful idiots" on the apparently-not-regressive left just keep wittering on in the most imbecilic black-and-white terms possible about how great a threat Islam is to our civilisation?
Out of interest, is it a phobia if I'm pretty terrified that actual proper fascists are coming very close to taking over large chunks of Europe and America on the back of a largely anti-islamic platform while "useful idiots" on the apparently-not-regressive left just keep wittering on in the most imbecilic black-and-white terms possible about how great a threat Islam is to our civilisation?
6
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Don't underestimate the dunderheaded human capacity for irrational hatred. Women in head scarves are the people most at risk of being spat or shouted at (in seeming anti-Muslim attacks - though some people might 'just' be bigoted racists too).
I don't think we can afford to be relaxed about this, whether it's anti-Muslim or anti-otherness, it's the weakest people who at most risk of abuse. Which says something lovely about the times we are living in. :-/
> I'd go with anti-Muslim bigotry. (By the way, how often do you think this sort of thing happens?)
Don't underestimate the dunderheaded human capacity for irrational hatred. Women in head scarves are the people most at risk of being spat or shouted at (in seeming anti-Muslim attacks - though some people might 'just' be bigoted racists too).
I don't think we can afford to be relaxed about this, whether it's anti-Muslim or anti-otherness, it's the weakest people who at most risk of abuse. Which says something lovely about the times we are living in. :-/
Post edited at 13:56
4
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I read the article, smelt something rancid and looked further - the 'cull' quote came up pretty quickly. I like to know a little about writers' backgrounds, it helps me understand their views and their agendas. The fact that someone who espouses (even theoretically) such an outlandish and hateful viewpoint, is also allowed access to column inches in mainstream news sources, is the entire point of my post. Otherwise we'd just be discussing yet another dreary low-level hate diatribe. Many of the writers at such rags don't even believe the rubbish they're paid to generate.
> It would be interesting to know how this debate would have transpired had you omitted this " cull " quote from your OP and kept it just on the article
I read the article, smelt something rancid and looked further - the 'cull' quote came up pretty quickly. I like to know a little about writers' backgrounds, it helps me understand their views and their agendas. The fact that someone who espouses (even theoretically) such an outlandish and hateful viewpoint, is also allowed access to column inches in mainstream news sources, is the entire point of my post. Otherwise we'd just be discussing yet another dreary low-level hate diatribe. Many of the writers at such rags don't even believe the rubbish they're paid to generate.
3
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
People who are homophobic do not fear gays. They're merely prejudiced against them - it isn't a phobia; it's the wrong term.
This is true. But I think you're trying to promote criticism of Islam (fair enough) while also trying to diminish the veracity or the importance of anti-Muslim bigotry, as below:
Are you referring to Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph in 2013? What does your experience of the world tell you about the likelihood of such events being prevalent today? You're implying that there isn't really a problem, which is both intuitively unrealistic and seems to have a pretty distasteful motivation.
> There is no good and rational reason to fear gay people. Therefore fear/hatred of them *is* a phobia.
People who are homophobic do not fear gays. They're merely prejudiced against them - it isn't a phobia; it's the wrong term.
> Whereas there *are* good reasons to regard Islam as a highly damaging idea system and to fear its influence on the world. Therefore opposition to it is *not* a phobia.
This is true. But I think you're trying to promote criticism of Islam (fair enough) while also trying to diminish the veracity or the importance of anti-Muslim bigotry, as below:
> Though whenever I've looked into such claims, a vast fraction of the "incidents" turn out to be too minor to amount to anything (e.g. someone said something on twitter, which is very different from being spat on in the street). If you have solid evidence of the prevalence of such incidents I'd be pleased to read about it.
Are you referring to Andrew Gilligan in the Telegraph in 2013? What does your experience of the world tell you about the likelihood of such events being prevalent today? You're implying that there isn't really a problem, which is both intuitively unrealistic and seems to have a pretty distasteful motivation.
5
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I like this reply, and I feel there's definitely a case to be made that openness to different beliefs defines the Western way of life, so as such children of immigrants should be educated in open and inclusive schools.
> I don't know. I don't claim to have a solution. I do think that recognising the issue is an important first step.
> One solution: I would not allow schools run by religious groups, and would try to avoid schools where children are segregated according to their parents' religion. Schools should be secular and promote liberal values. They should not be there to reinforce the religion of the parents.
I like this reply, and I feel there's definitely a case to be made that openness to different beliefs defines the Western way of life, so as such children of immigrants should be educated in open and inclusive schools.
Post edited at 14:04
2
1
In reply to KevinD:
Yes, sorry, didn't make it clear... the 'phobia' is my issue.
And for what it's worth I don't think antisemite is a useful term either... as demonstrated by the labour party recently. A few idiotic comments were branded 'antisemitism' for political gain. Fine, until you consider we also branded the Nazi party as antisemite. The term works against us rather than for us when such huge contrasts of magnitude are linked together so tightly.
> I am surprised you havent heard of "antisemitism" since it is rather well known term.
Yes, sorry, didn't make it clear... the 'phobia' is my issue.
And for what it's worth I don't think antisemite is a useful term either... as demonstrated by the labour party recently. A few idiotic comments were branded 'antisemitism' for political gain. Fine, until you consider we also branded the Nazi party as antisemite. The term works against us rather than for us when such huge contrasts of magnitude are linked together so tightly.
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
No, I'm not doing that. I'd be fairly sure that there are anti-Muslim attacks. What I am genuinely unsure of is the prevalence of them. Campaign groups such as tellMAMA have an interest in claiming the highest possible totals for such attacks. When you look into their reports, however, one generally finds a small number of real and serious attacks, bundled up with large numbers of "incidents" obtained by a trawl on twitter looking for certain words.
So, I am genuinely interested in proper and verifiable statistics on actual attacks.
For more on such things, see analyses such as: http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/08/24/demos-report-islamophobia/
> You're implying that there isn't really a problem, ...
No, I'm not doing that. I'd be fairly sure that there are anti-Muslim attacks. What I am genuinely unsure of is the prevalence of them. Campaign groups such as tellMAMA have an interest in claiming the highest possible totals for such attacks. When you look into their reports, however, one generally finds a small number of real and serious attacks, bundled up with large numbers of "incidents" obtained by a trawl on twitter looking for certain words.
So, I am genuinely interested in proper and verifiable statistics on actual attacks.
For more on such things, see analyses such as: http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/08/24/demos-report-islamophobia/
2
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I actually agree pretty strongly with this, FWIW, and I'm frankly baffled as to why we haven't already done it. (Edit: as in, I genuinely don't understand where the apparent support for the religious schooling in this country comes from...)
But then, France already has a fully secular education system, and they don't seem to be doing too well with the all-getting-along thing...
> One solution: I would not allow schools run by religious groups, and would try to avoid schools where children are segregated according to their parents' religion. Schools should be secular and promote liberal values. They should not be there to reinforce the religion of the parents.
I actually agree pretty strongly with this, FWIW, and I'm frankly baffled as to why we haven't already done it. (Edit: as in, I genuinely don't understand where the apparent support for the religious schooling in this country comes from...)
But then, France already has a fully secular education system, and they don't seem to be doing too well with the all-getting-along thing...
Post edited at 14:14
9
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Ironically your viewpoint is consistent with an attempt to control speech.
There are degrees of racism, just as there are degrees of seriousness for assault, for example. A criminal is a criminal; it's not unfair to label someone who's broken the law as such, and even a kid can understand the difference between a bad act, and a really bad act.
> Yes, sorry, didn't make it clear... the 'phobia' is my issue.
> And for what it's worth I don't think antisemite is a useful term either... as demonstrated by the labour party recently. A few idiotic comments were branded 'antisemitism' for political gain. Fine, until you consider we also branded the Nazi party as antisemite. The term works against us rather than for us when such huge contrasts of magnitude are linked together so tightly.
Ironically your viewpoint is consistent with an attempt to control speech.
There are degrees of racism, just as there are degrees of seriousness for assault, for example. A criminal is a criminal; it's not unfair to label someone who's broken the law as such, and even a kid can understand the difference between a bad act, and a really bad act.
Post edited at 14:18
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Just for the sake of clarity, the quote isn't a call by the author for muslims to be killed, it's the author's opinion as to what the serb's concluded - "The Serbs figured that out, as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you cannot outbreed the enemy, cull 'em.".
Just for the sake of clarity, the quote isn't a call by the author for muslims to be killed, it's the author's opinion as to what the serb's concluded - "The Serbs figured that out, as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you cannot outbreed the enemy, cull 'em.".
2
2
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Just for the sake of clarity, it's perfectly clear what the author meant, and you're missing the importance of the part where he says 'as other Continentals will'.
Regardless of whether he says he endorses this view or not, he is suggesting that mass slaughter is the only way to combat the demographic rise of Muslim people within a population.
Just for the sake of clarity, it's perfectly clear what the author meant, and you're missing the importance of the part where he says 'as other Continentals will'.
Regardless of whether he says he endorses this view or not, he is suggesting that mass slaughter is the only way to combat the demographic rise of Muslim people within a population.
3
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Not really, it just means to be scared of something. Finns are often accused of Russophobia, that might imply dwelling on the past, but certainly not that it is irrational.
BTW, what evidence do you have to say it was a term invented by Islamists? Who, when, where, why?
When I used to work on these sort of issues it was generally seen as only really coming into mainstream parlance in the UK in 1997 with the Runnymede Trust report (although that says the word goes back to the 80s and notes one usage in an American magazine from 91). So I'm interested in which Islamists are now given credit for coining the neologism.
> Second, because the word "phobia" implies an *irrational* fear of something.
Not really, it just means to be scared of something. Finns are often accused of Russophobia, that might imply dwelling on the past, but certainly not that it is irrational.
BTW, what evidence do you have to say it was a term invented by Islamists? Who, when, where, why?
When I used to work on these sort of issues it was generally seen as only really coming into mainstream parlance in the UK in 1997 with the Runnymede Trust report (although that says the word goes back to the 80s and notes one usage in an American magazine from 91). So I'm interested in which Islamists are now given credit for coining the neologism.
4
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Yes, it's perfectly clear. He states that's what the serbs decided. And he says other Continentals will, rather than should. It's like words don't matter.
No he isn't, he's saying that's what the serbs decided and that he thinks other Continentals will conclude the same. Really, if you're going to get all pissy at least read what's written rather than make it up.
> Just for the sake of clarity, it's perfectly clear what the author meant, and you're missing the importance of the part where he says 'as other Continentals will'.
Yes, it's perfectly clear. He states that's what the serbs decided. And he says other Continentals will, rather than should. It's like words don't matter.
> Regardless of whether he says he endorses this view or not, he is suggesting that mass slaughter is the only way to combat the demographic rise of Muslim people within a population.
No he isn't, he's saying that's what the serbs decided and that he thinks other Continentals will conclude the same. Really, if you're going to get all pissy at least read what's written rather than make it up.
4
3
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Good analysis in The Atlantic over Steyn's intent in this quote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/02/steyn-and-genocide/23...
Good analysis in The Atlantic over Steyn's intent in this quote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2007/02/steyn-and-genocide/23...
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Please let's keep the ad-hom and junior-school rhetoric to a minimum? I'm not 'getting pissy', and I've no need at all to make anything up. I'm discussing your point clearly and calmly.
Luke
Please let's keep the ad-hom and junior-school rhetoric to a minimum? I'm not 'getting pissy', and I've no need at all to make anything up. I'm discussing your point clearly and calmly.
Luke
Post edited at 14:43
1
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
No, it isn't, he makes the same mistakes you do.
> Good analysis in The Atlantic over Steyn's intent in this quote:
No, it isn't, he makes the same mistakes you do.
2
1
In reply to Bootrock:
You haven't posted a more accurate way of judging people than from what their character turns out to be.
This really bothers me. I've grown up knowing friends and family friends who are Jews, and Muslims, and brown and gay, and I look at the world and how people can face persecution because of their race or religion, and the shit which happens when people don't see beyond appearances or beyond what is different from themselves - or their group, and then you post about it being fair enough to judge on appearances or on people being Muslims, rather than on their characters inside of them.
I'm not trying to claim any kind of 'PC credibility' or some such, it's just a result of the family I've been born into.
If you do think it's more accurate/better to judge people on appearances - rather than on their character, can you say why?
You haven't posted a more accurate way of judging people than from what their character turns out to be.
This really bothers me. I've grown up knowing friends and family friends who are Jews, and Muslims, and brown and gay, and I look at the world and how people can face persecution because of their race or religion, and the shit which happens when people don't see beyond appearances or beyond what is different from themselves - or their group, and then you post about it being fair enough to judge on appearances or on people being Muslims, rather than on their characters inside of them.
I'm not trying to claim any kind of 'PC credibility' or some such, it's just a result of the family I've been born into.
If you do think it's more accurate/better to judge people on appearances - rather than on their character, can you say why?
Post edited at 14:48
3
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
The issue of the % of online incidents has been clarified by tell MAMA:
But Tell MAMA said its annual report showed the surge in anti-Muslim hatred, fuelled by terrorist incidents, was happening well before the EU referendum.
Its survey found that while far right activists are often behind the incidents online, many attacks are happening in the real world – at schools and colleges, in restaurants and on public transport. The number of offline incidents rose 326 per cent in 2015 from 146 to 437.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-muslim-racism-hate-cr...
How much this helps I don't know - we have no idea what proportion of incidents are reported to tell MAMA, and frankly, no way of knowing.
This just seems totally dry and academic to me. The problems we're dealing with are Islamic extremism and violence; and also, anti-Muslim hatred that comes about as a result. Reliably quantifying the number of tweets that fall under different definitions of 'Islamophobia' just doesn't seem like it's worth this degree of consideration to me.
> No, I'm not doing that. I'd be fairly sure that there are anti-Muslim attacks. What I am genuinely unsure of is the prevalence of them. Campaign groups such as tellMAMA have an interest in claiming the highest possible totals for such attacks. When you look into their reports, however, one generally finds a small number of real and serious attacks, bundled up with large numbers of "incidents" obtained by a trawl on twitter looking for certain words.
The issue of the % of online incidents has been clarified by tell MAMA:
But Tell MAMA said its annual report showed the surge in anti-Muslim hatred, fuelled by terrorist incidents, was happening well before the EU referendum.
Its survey found that while far right activists are often behind the incidents online, many attacks are happening in the real world – at schools and colleges, in restaurants and on public transport. The number of offline incidents rose 326 per cent in 2015 from 146 to 437.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-muslim-racism-hate-cr...
How much this helps I don't know - we have no idea what proportion of incidents are reported to tell MAMA, and frankly, no way of knowing.
> For more on such things, see analyses such as: http://www.michaelnugent.com/2016/08/24/demos-report-islamophobia/
This just seems totally dry and academic to me. The problems we're dealing with are Islamic extremism and violence; and also, anti-Muslim hatred that comes about as a result. Reliably quantifying the number of tweets that fall under different definitions of 'Islamophobia' just doesn't seem like it's worth this degree of consideration to me.
Post edited at 14:49
3
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I think you are giving too many Islamophobes a bit too much credit - consider that the first Islamophobic murder in the US after 9/11 was of a turban wearing Sikh. I have a Palestinian (as she describes herself, she has an Israeli passport) mate who has regularly faced Islamophobic slurs, which is ironic as she is an atheist from Christian family.
Your distinctions are all very well for university debating chamber but might seem a bit angels-on-a-pinhead to someone who has just been gobbed on or called a "paki terrorist bitch" (as another colleague described to me).
> Would someone opposed to Islam be against someone from an Islamic background who had renounced Islam and was totally secular and non-religious (or held to the moderate versions of Islam such as the Ahmadis)? No, he wouldn't.
I think you are giving too many Islamophobes a bit too much credit - consider that the first Islamophobic murder in the US after 9/11 was of a turban wearing Sikh. I have a Palestinian (as she describes herself, she has an Israeli passport) mate who has regularly faced Islamophobic slurs, which is ironic as she is an atheist from Christian family.
Your distinctions are all very well for university debating chamber but might seem a bit angels-on-a-pinhead to someone who has just been gobbed on or called a "paki terrorist bitch" (as another colleague described to me).
7
1
In reply to TobyA:
The unreasonableless and irrationality of the fear is a large part of the connotations of "phobia". One generally uses a -phobia term as a put-down (cf. xenophobia).
I've seen suggestions that it was invented in Khomeini's Iranian Revolution on 1979, a term invented by the Islamist revolutionaries to denigrate anyone resisting the revolution. E.g. see http://www.signandsight.com/features/2123.html
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have certainly been prominent in adopting and promoting the concept, and notably they apply the term "Islamophobia" to any criticism of Islam. See the Michael Nugent link I posted up thread.
> Not really, it just means to be scared of something.
The unreasonableless and irrationality of the fear is a large part of the connotations of "phobia". One generally uses a -phobia term as a put-down (cf. xenophobia).
> BTW, what evidence do you have to say it was a term invented by Islamists? Who, when, where, why?
I've seen suggestions that it was invented in Khomeini's Iranian Revolution on 1979, a term invented by the Islamist revolutionaries to denigrate anyone resisting the revolution. E.g. see http://www.signandsight.com/features/2123.html
The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation have certainly been prominent in adopting and promoting the concept, and notably they apply the term "Islamophobia" to any criticism of Islam. See the Michael Nugent link I posted up thread.
2
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Do you think it's reasonable to think that "other Continentals will [commit genocide]" in response to the grossly exaggerated demographic changes under discussion? Or do you think that to conclude that, you'd have to have a completely mental / deeply racist world view?
You're right in that he doesn't say "other Continentals should [commit genocide]". But why do you think he believes that they *will*?
Do you think it's reasonable to think that "other Continentals will [commit genocide]" in response to the grossly exaggerated demographic changes under discussion? Or do you think that to conclude that, you'd have to have a completely mental / deeply racist world view?
You're right in that he doesn't say "other Continentals should [commit genocide]". But why do you think he believes that they *will*?
2
2
In reply to TobyA:
But even making that sort of remark reveals the problem with the term -- it conflates mere prejudice and bigotry with legitimate criticism of an idea system.
Opposition to sharia courts gets labelled "Islamophobic". Opposition to non-stunned slaughter of animals gets labelled "Islamophobic". Supporting the free-speech right to draw cartoons about Islam gets labelled "Islamophobic". Et cetera.
> I think you are giving too many Islamophobes a bit too much credit ...
But even making that sort of remark reveals the problem with the term -- it conflates mere prejudice and bigotry with legitimate criticism of an idea system.
Opposition to sharia courts gets labelled "Islamophobic". Opposition to non-stunned slaughter of animals gets labelled "Islamophobic". Supporting the free-speech right to draw cartoons about Islam gets labelled "Islamophobic". Et cetera.
7
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
It amazes me that you haven't grasped my point. Let's look at what was said:
Good question, but does the complex and unique geopolitics of the Balkans post-Tito translate to today's problems of terror and integration in Western Europe? Unless one is given to utter ignorance and the most simplistic 'solutions' for complex issues, absolutely not.
So what tenuous links must Mr Steyn deploy in order to bridge this gap?
False cause - the absence of Tito as a stabilising force in the former Yugoslavia is completely ignored.
False premise, along with a false dichotomy.
Suggesting that this is a reasonable and logical thought process.
Pretty damn black and white there, sir.
Strongly suggesting the validity of such a twisted means of thinking in response to the incredibly complex and varied European diaspora of immigrants and asylum seekers, many of whom are fleeing extremist Islam.
> No, it isn't, he makes the same mistakes you do.
It amazes me that you haven't grasped my point. Let's look at what was said:
> Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since World War Two?
Good question, but does the complex and unique geopolitics of the Balkans post-Tito translate to today's problems of terror and integration in Western Europe? Unless one is given to utter ignorance and the most simplistic 'solutions' for complex issues, absolutely not.
So what tenuous links must Mr Steyn deploy in order to bridge this gap?
> In the thirty years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 percent to 31 percent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 percent to 44 percent.
False cause - the absence of Tito as a stabilising force in the former Yugoslavia is completely ignored.
> In a democratic age, you can't buck demography except through civil war.
False premise, along with a false dichotomy.
> The Serbs figured that out
Suggesting that this is a reasonable and logical thought process.
> as other Continentals will in the years ahead: if you can't outbreed the enemy, cull 'em.
Pretty damn black and white there, sir.
> The problem that Europe faces is that Bosnia’s demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent.
Strongly suggesting the validity of such a twisted means of thinking in response to the incredibly complex and varied European diaspora of immigrants and asylum seekers, many of whom are fleeing extremist Islam.
2
5
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Well, we've had genocides in Europe before so I don't think it's grossly unreasonable to think we'll have them again. Which doesn't mean that he isn't mental or deeply racist.
As above, perhaps we've grown out of genocides since the early nineties, somehow I doubt it.
> Do you think it's reasonable to think that "other Continentals will [commit genocide]" in response to the grossly exaggerated demographic changes under discussion? Or do you think that to conclude that, you'd have to have a completely mental / deeply racist world view?
Well, we've had genocides in Europe before so I don't think it's grossly unreasonable to think we'll have them again. Which doesn't mean that he isn't mental or deeply racist.
> You're right in that he doesn't say "other Continentals should [commit genocide]". But why do you think he believes that they *will*?
As above, perhaps we've grown out of genocides since the early nineties, somehow I doubt it.
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Just suppose that any criticism of government polices by the opposition, or any criticism of the opposition by the government, got lumped in with things like the murder of Joe Cox as being examples of "phobia". Would that be legitimate and helpful?
> Reliably quantifying the number of tweets that fall under different definitions of 'Islamophobia' just doesn't seem like it's worth this degree of consideration to me.
Just suppose that any criticism of government polices by the opposition, or any criticism of the opposition by the government, got lumped in with things like the murder of Joe Cox as being examples of "phobia". Would that be legitimate and helpful?
2
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I don't know how to answer this, it's so vague as to be meaningless. What do you mean by "lumped in with things like"?
Any term like "homophobia", "racism", "Islamophobia" is going to be used - and from some perspectives misused - for political reasons. Someone will always try to smear their opponent with such terms. You're not going to have any impact on the world by campaigning for tight and accurately defined terms for different types of bigotry.
> Just suppose that any criticism of government polices by the opposition, or any criticism of the opposition by the government, got lumped in with things like the murder of Joe Cox as being examples of "phobia". Would that be legitimate and helpful?
I don't know how to answer this, it's so vague as to be meaningless. What do you mean by "lumped in with things like"?
Any term like "homophobia", "racism", "Islamophobia" is going to be used - and from some perspectives misused - for political reasons. Someone will always try to smear their opponent with such terms. You're not going to have any impact on the world by campaigning for tight and accurately defined terms for different types of bigotry.
5
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I haven't grasped your point because you haven't made one. Is it that you disagree with his theory as to why the Serbian massacre happened? Or do you disagree with his theory that it will happen again in Europe?
I haven't grasped your point because you haven't made one. Is it that you disagree with his theory as to why the Serbian massacre happened? Or do you disagree with his theory that it will happen again in Europe?
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Take (1) The murder of Labour politican Joe Cox, and
(2) Theresa May's criticism of Corbyn at PMQs.
Would it be helpful and legitimate for a pressure group, let's say the Demos think tank, to count them both as instances of "Labour-phobia" and publish a report saying that Labour-phobia is increasing?
> I don't know how to answer this, it's so vague as to be meaningless. What do you mean by "lumped in with things like"?
Take (1) The murder of Labour politican Joe Cox, and
(2) Theresa May's criticism of Corbyn at PMQs.
Would it be helpful and legitimate for a pressure group, let's say the Demos think tank, to count them both as instances of "Labour-phobia" and publish a report saying that Labour-phobia is increasing?
1
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
What? He's talking about Western European countries turning their state machinery onto the task of slaughtering Muslims, as they threaten to outnumber white citizens? It's bonkers, and very clearly comes from a twisted, paranoid, racist world-view.
Who are you talking about when you say "we"? In Western Europe I think we have, yes. I don't think that the migrant crisis is going to end in European states turning to genocide as a solution.
> Well, we've had genocides in Europe before so I don't think it's grossly unreasonable to think we'll have them again. Which doesn't mean that he isn't mental or deeply racist.
What? He's talking about Western European countries turning their state machinery onto the task of slaughtering Muslims, as they threaten to outnumber white citizens? It's bonkers, and very clearly comes from a twisted, paranoid, racist world-view.
> As above, perhaps we've grown out of genocides since the early nineties, somehow I doubt it.
Who are you talking about when you say "we"? In Western Europe I think we have, yes. I don't think that the migrant crisis is going to end in European states turning to genocide as a solution.
2
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I had read those links and now adding in the Bruckner piece the evidence seems incredibly thin. Are they claiming that pro Khomeini people were using the term in _english_? If not I really think that claiming a Persian term is the origin of this anglosphere discourse 35 years later is ridiculous unless there is a clear evidence of when the term was translated and started being used in the west. The idea that the OIC would be pushing a Khomeinist concept also seems most unlikely for the obvious reasons.
You seem very convinced by this very thin "evidence" - enough to be telling people they've "fallen for the Islamist propaganda" or whatever phrase it was you used above. I would think the scientist in you would be a bit more careful in assessing the 'data'.
My old institute hosted a seminar where that Turkish bloke who was the longtime chair of OIC was a keynote speaker and I remember the Finnish "Counter-Jihad" bloggers turned up to challenge him on the Islamophobia thing. It seemed pretty lame at the time, the OIC does look at islamophobic attacks in Europe and elsewhere, but the only westerners who seem to pay attention to those reports are rightwing bloggers. If HMG is getting worried about islamophobia here, there are lots of UK academics who have looked at the issue plus police stats and the normal victim surveys to mine for data. This idea that the OIC somehow both created the concept of Islamophobia and now has everyone seeing islamophobes everywhere, has been pushed by the normal US rightwing think-tank/blog circles like MEF, Hudson, Daniel Pipes etc. all who are, of course, regularly accused of being Islamophobic!
I had read those links and now adding in the Bruckner piece the evidence seems incredibly thin. Are they claiming that pro Khomeini people were using the term in _english_? If not I really think that claiming a Persian term is the origin of this anglosphere discourse 35 years later is ridiculous unless there is a clear evidence of when the term was translated and started being used in the west. The idea that the OIC would be pushing a Khomeinist concept also seems most unlikely for the obvious reasons.
You seem very convinced by this very thin "evidence" - enough to be telling people they've "fallen for the Islamist propaganda" or whatever phrase it was you used above. I would think the scientist in you would be a bit more careful in assessing the 'data'.
My old institute hosted a seminar where that Turkish bloke who was the longtime chair of OIC was a keynote speaker and I remember the Finnish "Counter-Jihad" bloggers turned up to challenge him on the Islamophobia thing. It seemed pretty lame at the time, the OIC does look at islamophobic attacks in Europe and elsewhere, but the only westerners who seem to pay attention to those reports are rightwing bloggers. If HMG is getting worried about islamophobia here, there are lots of UK academics who have looked at the issue plus police stats and the normal victim surveys to mine for data. This idea that the OIC somehow both created the concept of Islamophobia and now has everyone seeing islamophobes everywhere, has been pushed by the normal US rightwing think-tank/blog circles like MEF, Hudson, Daniel Pipes etc. all who are, of course, regularly accused of being Islamophobic!
3
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
How is this pointless hypothetical instructive? I agree that legitimate criticism of religious ideas can be misrepresented as bigotry, I just find this whole avenue of debate to be of very little consequence. Invent a new term for anti-Muslim bigotry and nothing will change. You'll still have bigots spitting at women in hijabs, and intelligent people making valid criticism of religious ideas - and everything in between.
> Take (1) The murder of Labour politican Joe Cox, and
> (2) Theresa May's criticism of Corbyn at PMQs.
> Would it be helpful and legitimate for a pressure group, let's say the Demos think tank, to count them both as instances of "Labour-phobia" and publish a report saying that Labour-phobia is increasing?
How is this pointless hypothetical instructive? I agree that legitimate criticism of religious ideas can be misrepresented as bigotry, I just find this whole avenue of debate to be of very little consequence. Invent a new term for anti-Muslim bigotry and nothing will change. You'll still have bigots spitting at women in hijabs, and intelligent people making valid criticism of religious ideas - and everything in between.
4
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I take it you mean the massacre in Bosnia, of Bosnian Muslims, by Bosnian Serbs (plus some Serbs from Serbia-proper who were in the Bosnian-Serb forces). Lets not get confused on who were the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity here, and who were the victims.
BTW Steyn's point on demographics seems utter bollocks considering people were all Yugoslavs in the decades before the war plus all the other well researched reasons for the Yugoslav wars of dissolution.
> his theory as to why the Serbian massacre happened?
I take it you mean the massacre in Bosnia, of Bosnian Muslims, by Bosnian Serbs (plus some Serbs from Serbia-proper who were in the Bosnian-Serb forces). Lets not get confused on who were the perpetrators of the crimes against humanity here, and who were the victims.
BTW Steyn's point on demographics seems utter bollocks considering people were all Yugoslavs in the decades before the war plus all the other well researched reasons for the Yugoslav wars of dissolution.
4
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
We've done it before (not for muslims admittedly), why do you think it couldn't happen again?
People, the human race. But perhaps you're right and in "Western Europe" we have outgrown genocide.
> What? He's talking about Western European countries turning their state machinery onto the task of slaughtering Muslims, as they threaten to outnumber white citizens? It's bonkers, and very clearly comes from a twisted, paranoid, racist world-view.
We've done it before (not for muslims admittedly), why do you think it couldn't happen again?
> Who are you talking about when you say "we"? In Western Europe I think we have, yes. I don't think that the migrant crisis is going to end in European states turning to genocide as a solution.
People, the human race. But perhaps you're right and in "Western Europe" we have outgrown genocide.
3
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I'm fairly close to giving up with you on this, as it appears that you're being obstinate for the sake of it.
I make my disagreement with his ludicrous viewpoint perfectly clear in my last reply.
I wouldn't dignify it with the term 'theory'. It's one possible, but hopefully very unlikely outcome in an emerging and complex crisis. What's troubling about it isn't the deeply skewed logic, it's the clear belief that such an outcome is inevitable. There, that's my point.
> I haven't grasped your point because you haven't made one.
I'm fairly close to giving up with you on this, as it appears that you're being obstinate for the sake of it.
> Is it that you disagree with his theory as to why the Serbian massacre happened?
I make my disagreement with his ludicrous viewpoint perfectly clear in my last reply.
> Or do you disagree with his theory that it will happen again in Europe?
I wouldn't dignify it with the term 'theory'. It's one possible, but hopefully very unlikely outcome in an emerging and complex crisis. What's troubling about it isn't the deeply skewed logic, it's the clear belief that such an outcome is inevitable. There, that's my point.
1
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
As a thought experiment, what do you think would actually happen if the demographic of UK, France, Germany, Holland, Spain etc was becoming more and more islamic through immigration and much higher breeding to the point that they were pushing towards 50% of the population?
If I was a gambling man, I would put all my money on an awful lot of violence. Hard to see it happening peacefully,
As a thought experiment, what do you think would actually happen if the demographic of UK, France, Germany, Holland, Spain etc was becoming more and more islamic through immigration and much higher breeding to the point that they were pushing towards 50% of the population?
If I was a gambling man, I would put all my money on an awful lot of violence. Hard to see it happening peacefully,
9
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Only when you wilfully refuse to read what's written and prefer to engage with what you imagine to have been said.
Well, it seems to be common ground that it's happened before and he thinks it will happen again. Surely at most only half of that can be wrong.
You should have said. I suspect conflict is inevitable, but hopefully we'll stop short of genocide.
> I'm fairly close to giving up with you on this, as it appears that you're being obstinate for the sake of it.
Only when you wilfully refuse to read what's written and prefer to engage with what you imagine to have been said.
> I make my disagreement with his ludicrous viewpoint perfectly clear in my last reply.
Well, it seems to be common ground that it's happened before and he thinks it will happen again. Surely at most only half of that can be wrong.
> I wouldn't dignify it with the term 'theory'. It's one possible, but hopefully very unlikely outcome in an emerging and complex crisis. What's troubling about it isn't the deeply skewed logic, it's the clear belief that such an outcome is inevitable. There, that's my point.
You should have said. I suspect conflict is inevitable, but hopefully we'll stop short of genocide.
1
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I strongly suspect you're trolling. If not, give me the benefit of the doubt and clearly explain your position for the first time.
> Only when you wilfully refuse to read what's written and prefer to engage with what you imagine to have been said.
I strongly suspect you're trolling. If not, give me the benefit of the doubt and clearly explain your position for the first time.
1
2
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
I can't comment on what would "actually happen" in parallel universe where everything stays the same except for an increasing number of Muslims in those countries. The scenario makes no sense to me, because so much else would have to change (and not change) for those demographics to come about. I agree a Muslim invasion would be violent! But how you'd get to that demographic without everything about society also changing I can't see.
> As a thought experiment, what do you think would actually happen if the demographic of UK, France, Germany, Holland, Spain etc was becoming more and more islamic through immigration and much higher breeding to the point that they were pushing towards 50% of the population?
I can't comment on what would "actually happen" in parallel universe where everything stays the same except for an increasing number of Muslims in those countries. The scenario makes no sense to me, because so much else would have to change (and not change) for those demographics to come about. I agree a Muslim invasion would be violent! But how you'd get to that demographic without everything about society also changing I can't see.
3
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
In case anyone doesn't remember what happened. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
It isn't pleasant reading in places.
In case anyone doesn't remember what happened. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
It isn't pleasant reading in places.
1
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Muslims in Bosnia wasn't an immigration issue, they had been there since the Ottoman Empire.
Muslims in Bosnia wasn't an immigration issue, they had been there since the Ottoman Empire.
3
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I'm generally pretty cynical about the world, but you're really plumbing extraordinary depths here. To suggest that Western democracies learnt nothing from WW2 and that we're perfectly likely to tread the same path is staggeringly pessimistic. And it's completely at odds with everything ever said by any leader of any Western democracy.
> We've done it before (not for muslims admittedly), why do you think it couldn't happen again?
I'm generally pretty cynical about the world, but you're really plumbing extraordinary depths here. To suggest that Western democracies learnt nothing from WW2 and that we're perfectly likely to tread the same path is staggeringly pessimistic. And it's completely at odds with everything ever said by any leader of any Western democracy.
1
In reply to marsbar:
Does that actually mean it wasn't an immigration issue? C.f Northern Ireland.
> Muslims in Bosnia wasn't an immigration issue, they had been there since the Ottoman Empire.
Does that actually mean it wasn't an immigration issue? C.f Northern Ireland.
Post edited at 16:30
3
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Trump with his Muslim and Mexican comments isn't that far off (and of course he was unelectable...). Then we have Farage, Le Pen etc, not far from power.
> . And it's completely at odds with everything ever said by any leader of any Western democracy.
Trump with his Muslim and Mexican comments isn't that far off (and of course he was unelectable...). Then we have Farage, Le Pen etc, not far from power.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Need I spell it out?
The Demos think tank constructed a method of counting instances of "Islamophobia" that included a vast number of entirely valid and sensible criticisms of the Islamic religion. They conflated this sort of "Islamophobia" with (a vastly smaller number of) actual attacks on people. They then produced a report saying that "Islamophobia" is increasing, and the mainstream media lapped it up.
The term is being used in an attempt to stifle legitimate commentary about and criticism of Islam! That's the fault of people like Demos and others who throw the term "Islamophobia" around!
> How is this pointless hypothetical instructive?
Need I spell it out?
The Demos think tank constructed a method of counting instances of "Islamophobia" that included a vast number of entirely valid and sensible criticisms of the Islamic religion. They conflated this sort of "Islamophobia" with (a vastly smaller number of) actual attacks on people. They then produced a report saying that "Islamophobia" is increasing, and the mainstream media lapped it up.
The term is being used in an attempt to stifle legitimate commentary about and criticism of Islam! That's the fault of people like Demos and others who throw the term "Islamophobia" around!
6
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I agree, best chance of it happening peacefully is if it happened over a long enough time line, and is probably what will happen. A very slow creep. Some people will be afraid of this and will try and highlight it as an insidious creep (UKIP/Farage/FN/AfD etc) Eventually, I predict these types of politicians will gain power and then the violence will start.
How to stop it? hard to know but 2016 has been a poleshift year for this , and judging by the divisive and heated nature of the debate at this juncture (very small numbers of Muslims as a percentage in UK etc) then you have to be fearful for the future if the politicians don't get a grip on it
I agree, best chance of it happening peacefully is if it happened over a long enough time line, and is probably what will happen. A very slow creep. Some people will be afraid of this and will try and highlight it as an insidious creep (UKIP/Farage/FN/AfD etc) Eventually, I predict these types of politicians will gain power and then the violence will start.
How to stop it? hard to know but 2016 has been a poleshift year for this , and judging by the divisive and heated nature of the debate at this juncture (very small numbers of Muslims as a percentage in UK etc) then you have to be fearful for the future if the politicians don't get a grip on it
In reply to Jon Stewart:
You're probably right, like the war to end all wars.
> I'm generally pretty cynical about the world, but you're really plumbing extraordinary depths here. To suggest that Western democracies learnt nothing from WW2 and that we're perfectly likely to tread the same path is staggeringly pessimistic. And it's completely at odds with everything ever said by any leader of any Western democracy.
You're probably right, like the war to end all wars.
3
1
In reply to marsbar:
yes and many of the problems relate back a long way in history. Many call the war in the 90s, the Third Balkan War. Although there was only 2 weeks between the First and Second. The problems go further back into various treaties between various populations. Many of the seeds of WW1, were sown in the 2nd Balkans War. The problems in Serbia in the 90s have everything to do with the 1st and 2nd Balkan wars, the various cultures, religions, nationalities etc.. within that region and their conflict over the previous 200 years. Just like NI/Ireland, Russia/Crimea/Ukraine, Spain/GB/Gibraltor, FI/GB/Argentina, India/Pakistan/Kashmir, China/Tiawan/Tibet... there are often long held reasons, beliefs or disagreements behind many current day problems.
> Muslims in Bosnia wasn't an immigration issue, they had been there since the Ottoman Empire.
yes and many of the problems relate back a long way in history. Many call the war in the 90s, the Third Balkan War. Although there was only 2 weeks between the First and Second. The problems go further back into various treaties between various populations. Many of the seeds of WW1, were sown in the 2nd Balkans War. The problems in Serbia in the 90s have everything to do with the 1st and 2nd Balkan wars, the various cultures, religions, nationalities etc.. within that region and their conflict over the previous 200 years. Just like NI/Ireland, Russia/Crimea/Ukraine, Spain/GB/Gibraltor, FI/GB/Argentina, India/Pakistan/Kashmir, China/Tiawan/Tibet... there are often long held reasons, beliefs or disagreements behind many current day problems.
3
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Maybe if we keep banging on about how inherently scary Islam is while quibbling over the precise choice of language whenever anyone tries to criticize the Fascists then that'll help?
> I agree, best chance of it happening peacefully is if it happened over a long enough time line, and is probably what will happen. A very slow creep. Some people will be afraid of this and will try and highlight it as an insidious creep (UKIP/Farage/FN/AfD etc) Eventually, I predict these types of politicians will gain power and then the violence will start.
> How to stop it?
Maybe if we keep banging on about how inherently scary Islam is while quibbling over the precise choice of language whenever anyone tries to criticize the Fascists then that'll help?
4
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
My point? That your first post wrongly suggested that the author was suggesting culling muslims rather than suggesting that it was a conclusion that the action would be taken.
> I strongly suspect you're trolling. If not, give me the benefit of the doubt and clearly explain your position for the first time.
My point? That your first post wrongly suggested that the author was suggesting culling muslims rather than suggesting that it was a conclusion that the action would be taken.
5
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
We're not going to get any further. You think it's important, I think it's academic. There is so much "legitimate commentary about and criticism of Islam" from so many influential figures getting through that I just can't take seriously the idea that we have a genuine problem of it being stifled because of the term 'Islamophobia'. The critique of the Demos report is fair - it's just not important.
I'm also totally unconvinced that the solution to the problems coming from the Islamic word - i.e. the terrorism, oppression, etc - lies in criticism of the content of the Koran. In fact, I think this approach - while perfectly legitimate - is misguided and counterproductive
> The term is being used in an attempt to stifle legitimate commentary about and criticism of Islam!
We're not going to get any further. You think it's important, I think it's academic. There is so much "legitimate commentary about and criticism of Islam" from so many influential figures getting through that I just can't take seriously the idea that we have a genuine problem of it being stifled because of the term 'Islamophobia'. The critique of the Demos report is fair - it's just not important.
I'm also totally unconvinced that the solution to the problems coming from the Islamic word - i.e. the terrorism, oppression, etc - lies in criticism of the content of the Koran. In fact, I think this approach - while perfectly legitimate - is misguided and counterproductive
3
2
In reply to the OP:
The idea that you can't be racist about a religion (or nationality) is dumb.
For most of us our race, religion and nationality come from our parents.
All three mostly come from the same thing - an accident of birth.
They are intertwined and clear distinctions are spurious since they're largely determined by the same accident of parental genetics and parenting.
The other factor is that I don't think racists make clear distinctions.
Look at the the word P**k* - it's not about Paksitani passport holders but it's a good indicator you're going to hear something about race (skin colour) & Muslims.
The pedants and dictionaries might make clear distinctions but bigots don't.
The idea that you can't be racist about a religion (or nationality) is dumb.
For most of us our race, religion and nationality come from our parents.
All three mostly come from the same thing - an accident of birth.
They are intertwined and clear distinctions are spurious since they're largely determined by the same accident of parental genetics and parenting.
The other factor is that I don't think racists make clear distinctions.
Look at the the word P**k* - it's not about Paksitani passport holders but it's a good indicator you're going to hear something about race (skin colour) & Muslims.
The pedants and dictionaries might make clear distinctions but bigots don't.
Post edited at 16:35
6
5
In reply to Jon Stewart:
If we interpret "criticism of the content of the Koran" in a more general sense to mean reform of the Islamic religion to make it more pluralist and tolerant, then I'd suggest that this is indeed a necessary part of working towards a solution.
> I'm also totally unconvinced that the solution to the problems coming from the Islamic word - i.e. the terrorism, oppression, etc - lies in criticism of the content of the Koran.
If we interpret "criticism of the content of the Koran" in a more general sense to mean reform of the Islamic religion to make it more pluralist and tolerant, then I'd suggest that this is indeed a necessary part of working towards a solution.
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I agree with that, but what I hear a lot more of (whether that's from right-wing pisspots like Douglas Murray or the liberal intelligentsia like Sam Harris) is arguments to demonstrate that "Islam is bad".
> If we interpret "criticism of the content of the Koran" in a more general sense to mean reform of the Islamic religion to make it more pluralist and tolerant, then I'd suggest that this is indeed a necessary part of working towards a solution.
I agree with that, but what I hear a lot more of (whether that's from right-wing pisspots like Douglas Murray or the liberal intelligentsia like Sam Harris) is arguments to demonstrate that "Islam is bad".
3
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
It's also not really what most of the European and US far right are engaging in. As far as I can tell, they don't generally subscribe to the nice intellectual distinction that it's possible to be critical of Islamic theology while still treating individual Muslims with respect and tolerance.
Edit: or at least, if they do then they're often pretty happy to go in with both feet on the individual Muslims as well.
> I'm also totally unconvinced that the solution to the problems coming from the Islamic word - i.e. the terrorism, oppression, etc - lies in criticism of the content of the Koran.
It's also not really what most of the European and US far right are engaging in. As far as I can tell, they don't generally subscribe to the nice intellectual distinction that it's possible to be critical of Islamic theology while still treating individual Muslims with respect and tolerance.
Edit: or at least, if they do then they're often pretty happy to go in with both feet on the individual Muslims as well.
Post edited at 16:46
3
In reply to elsewhere:
They may be an accident of birth but one of the three is a choice, not a fact.
They may be an accident of birth but one of the three is a choice, not a fact.
3
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Well mainstream Islam *is* bad! You'd hear fewer such arguments from Douglas Murray and Sam Harris if large parts of "the left" were not in denial of that fact!
> ... but what I hear a lot more of ... is arguments to demonstrate that "Islam is bad".
Well mainstream Islam *is* bad! You'd hear fewer such arguments from Douglas Murray and Sam Harris if large parts of "the left" were not in denial of that fact!
6
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Funny you mention Douglas Murray and Sam Harris.Did you read DM's hatchet job on the Guardians anonymous piece on Sam Harris and turning into a racist?
Original piece here
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-right-online-pois...
Douglas Murrays assessment here
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/welcome-world-right-wing-gateway-drugs...
Funny you mention Douglas Murray and Sam Harris.Did you read DM's hatchet job on the Guardians anonymous piece on Sam Harris and turning into a racist?
Original piece here
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-right-online-pois...
Douglas Murrays assessment here
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/welcome-world-right-wing-gateway-drugs...
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Before it was a word constructed by evil Islamists specifically to do this. In a few posts now it's just a term "being used..." to do this. Are you not standing by your original claim any more Coel?
> The term is being used in an attempt to stifle legitimate commentary about and criticism of Islam! That's the fault of people like Demos and others who throw the term "Islamophobia" around!
Before it was a word constructed by evil Islamists specifically to do this. In a few posts now it's just a term "being used..." to do this. Are you not standing by your original claim any more Coel?
Post edited at 17:03
2
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Let's be completely clear: suggesting mass slaughter is the only conclusion to a rising Muslim population within Europe, amounts to an endorsement by proxy.
He's not going to directly suggest that Continental Europeans take matters into their own hands - either because he feels it's wrong to do so (unlikely, read Steyn's further elaboration on the issue in the Atlantic article above), or because he feels it will be 'ineffective' (a more reasonable conclusion *based on the author's own words*), or more likely yet, because he knows that no publisher is going to touch it, and it could result in criminal action.
Let's be completely clear: suggesting mass slaughter is the only conclusion to a rising Muslim population within Europe, amounts to an endorsement by proxy.
He's not going to directly suggest that Continental Europeans take matters into their own hands - either because he feels it's wrong to do so (unlikely, read Steyn's further elaboration on the issue in the Atlantic article above), or because he feels it will be 'ineffective' (a more reasonable conclusion *based on the author's own words*), or more likely yet, because he knows that no publisher is going to touch it, and it could result in criminal action.
1
3
In reply to TobyA:
Both of those can be true at the same time! I'm not fully sure of the origins of the term, but most often use and promotion of the term has had the intent of trying to disallow criticism of Islam. That includes the 1997 Runnymede Trust report, which, as you say, popularised the term in this country,
> Before it was a word constructed by evil Islamists specifically to do this. In a few posts now it's just a term "being used..." to do this. Are you not standing by your original claim any more Coel?
Both of those can be true at the same time! I'm not fully sure of the origins of the term, but most often use and promotion of the term has had the intent of trying to disallow criticism of Islam. That includes the 1997 Runnymede Trust report, which, as you say, popularised the term in this country,
1
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Ha. No, not seen that stuff. Not quite sure what to make of 'anonymous' - I've got a lot of time for Sam Harris (even if I think he has a pathological obsession with Islam and completely misguided views on US foreign policy), but it's quite a stretch not to instantly vomit at the sight and sound of Milo Yiannopoulos...that's a pretty steep slope to go down in 3 months!
> Funny you mention Douglas Murray and Sam Harris.Did you read DM's hatchet job on the Guardians anonymous piece on Sam Harris and turning into a racist?
Ha. No, not seen that stuff. Not quite sure what to make of 'anonymous' - I've got a lot of time for Sam Harris (even if I think he has a pathological obsession with Islam and completely misguided views on US foreign policy), but it's quite a stretch not to instantly vomit at the sight and sound of Milo Yiannopoulos...that's a pretty steep slope to go down in 3 months!
1
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Ok so let me get something straight.
While the dead are still being processed and not even laid to rest, we have had outcry on an article that is barely "racist" condemns the attack and a statement that its mainstream acceptance of "extremist" views....
Yet the very people that caused this atrocity and other attacks by extremism that left innocent people, men, women and children, innocent civilians, not soldiers and you lot barely mention the loss of life and if anything it's brought out a lot wet lettuce, limp wristed, liberal, tree hugging, special snowflake, granola eating lefty apologists emotionally knee jerking about it. I doubt you idiots put half
As much thought, effort and time into the attack as you have this article. It's pathetic.
It's you regressive left lot that have brought this on us,
And are to thank for the slow death of European culture and traditions.
Ok so let me get something straight.
While the dead are still being processed and not even laid to rest, we have had outcry on an article that is barely "racist" condemns the attack and a statement that its mainstream acceptance of "extremist" views....
Yet the very people that caused this atrocity and other attacks by extremism that left innocent people, men, women and children, innocent civilians, not soldiers and you lot barely mention the loss of life and if anything it's brought out a lot wet lettuce, limp wristed, liberal, tree hugging, special snowflake, granola eating lefty apologists emotionally knee jerking about it. I doubt you idiots put half
As much thought, effort and time into the attack as you have this article. It's pathetic.
It's you regressive left lot that have brought this on us,
And are to thank for the slow death of European culture and traditions.
9
5
In reply to Jon Stewart:
It was claimed, completely plausibly (but not yet confirmed) that this was a hoax on the Guardian. The article was so preposterous, such a hilarious Poe/parody of liberal Guardian lunacy, that I'm quite willing to believe it was.
It was claimed, completely plausibly (but not yet confirmed) that this was a hoax on the Guardian. The article was so preposterous, such a hilarious Poe/parody of liberal Guardian lunacy, that I'm quite willing to believe it was.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Fair enough, although you seemed pretty sure earlier on, i.e.:
I feel you have swallowed the "Counter-Jihad" propaganda uncritically. Facts really effing matter in this stuff as it directly impacts on people's lives. From your normal hyper-rationalist stance, you seem to be getting a bit PoMo on 'truth' when it comes to political issues.
Your view of what Islamophobia means, and what it is used for, would seem quite clearly to reflect the intellectual milieu that you seem to move in. OK; but try to understand for lots of British Muslims (and, it seems, also people who bigots seem to think are Muslim even when they are not) Islamophobia is part of their lived experience, and a highly negative part at that.
> I'm not fully sure of the origins of the term,
Fair enough, although you seemed pretty sure earlier on, i.e.:
> The concept of "Islamophobia" was created by Islamists as a method to try to disallow criticism of Islam (the religion). It is deliberately blurring the distinction between ideas and people, so that whenever Islam (the religion) gets criticised the "useful idiots" of the Western "regressive left" can fall about saying "ooh you racist!".
> You seem to have swallowed the Islamists propaganda uncritically.
I feel you have swallowed the "Counter-Jihad" propaganda uncritically. Facts really effing matter in this stuff as it directly impacts on people's lives. From your normal hyper-rationalist stance, you seem to be getting a bit PoMo on 'truth' when it comes to political issues.
Your view of what Islamophobia means, and what it is used for, would seem quite clearly to reflect the intellectual milieu that you seem to move in. OK; but try to understand for lots of British Muslims (and, it seems, also people who bigots seem to think are Muslim even when they are not) Islamophobia is part of their lived experience, and a highly negative part at that.
2
1
In reply to Bootrock:
you missed out "regressive left", bootrock!
ah, there it is.
house!
> Ok so let me get something straight.
> While the dead are still being processed and not even laid to rest, we have had outcry on an article that is barely "racist" condemns the attack and a statement that its mainstream acceptance of "extremist" views....
> Yet the very people that caused this atrocity and other attacks by extremism that left innocent people, men, women and children, innocent civilians, not soldiers and you lot barely mention the loss of life and if anything it's brought out a lot wet lettuce, limp wristed, liberal, tree hugging, special snowflake, granola eating lefty apologists emotionally knee jerking about it. I doubt you idiots put half
you missed out "regressive left", bootrock!
> As much thought, effort and time into the attack as you have this article. It's pathetic.
> It's you regressive left lot that have brought this on us,
ah, there it is.
house!
5
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
But it's ok for Moslems to proclaim death to the west, death to the western values and democracy?
It's ok for moslems to attack innocent civilians because they don't share the same view?
It's ok for Moslems to cut off people's heads in streets?
It's ok for Moslems to suggest mass slaughter and out breeding the west?
It's ok for Moslems to block fire escapes at an all girls school and set fire to it?
It's ok for Moslems to burn school teachers to death?
It's ok for Moslems to use kids with Down syndrome as a walking IED?
It's ok for Moslems to preach hatred in our schools and prisons?
He doesn't need to. Look at Brexit, Italy voted to leave, trump is in, and the huge rise of right wing politics across Europe.
> Let's be completely clear: suggesting mass slaughter is the only conclusion to a rising Muslim population within Europe, amounts to an endorsement by proxy.
But it's ok for Moslems to proclaim death to the west, death to the western values and democracy?
It's ok for moslems to attack innocent civilians because they don't share the same view?
It's ok for Moslems to cut off people's heads in streets?
It's ok for Moslems to suggest mass slaughter and out breeding the west?
It's ok for Moslems to block fire escapes at an all girls school and set fire to it?
It's ok for Moslems to burn school teachers to death?
It's ok for Moslems to use kids with Down syndrome as a walking IED?
It's ok for Moslems to preach hatred in our schools and prisons?
> He's not going to directly suggest that Continental Europeans take matters into their own hands - either because he feels it's wrong to do so (unlikely, read Steyn's further elaboration on the issue in the Atlantic article above), or because he feels it will be 'ineffective' (a more reasonable conclusion *based on the author's own words*), or more likely yet, because he knows that no publisher is going to touch it, and it could result in criminal action.
He doesn't need to. Look at Brexit, Italy voted to leave, trump is in, and the huge rise of right wing politics across Europe.
5
1
In reply to TobyA:
So let's examine the Runnymede Trust definition of "Islamophobia". Characteristics of "Islamophobia" include:
1) "Islam seen ... as not having any aims and values in common with other cultures".
The "any" makes that a bit silly, but, mainstream Islam certainly does have many values opposed to Western values. Most obvious are the rights to apostasy and blasphemy, and free-speech right to criticise Islam, which Islam does not accept.
2) "Islam seen as inferior to the West -- barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist."
Well, mainstream Islam *is* sexist! Many aspects of Islamic Sharia law *explicitly* give lesser status to women! And Islam *is* irrational and primitive (so is Christianity, since you ask). Islam certainly *is* inferior as a system for running a country to Western secular, liberal democracy.
3) "Islam seem as violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism ..."
Well sorry, but it is fair enough to say that mainstream Islam *does* have such tendencies. Anyone heard of Islamic State?
4) "Islam seen as a political ideology ..."
Well it very often is! Sorry, but mainstream Islam does not recognise church/state separation, and Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood **are** political!
Now, note that all of the above are about Islam the ideology, and about whether criticisms of the ideology are legitimate and valid. **That** is what Runnymede call "Islamophobia". The term is *not* just about spitting on a woman wearing a veil, the usage of the term is quite blatantly an attempt to disallow entirely legitimate criticism of Islam.
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/islamophobia.pdf
So let's examine the Runnymede Trust definition of "Islamophobia". Characteristics of "Islamophobia" include:
1) "Islam seen ... as not having any aims and values in common with other cultures".
The "any" makes that a bit silly, but, mainstream Islam certainly does have many values opposed to Western values. Most obvious are the rights to apostasy and blasphemy, and free-speech right to criticise Islam, which Islam does not accept.
2) "Islam seen as inferior to the West -- barbaric, irrational, primitive, sexist."
Well, mainstream Islam *is* sexist! Many aspects of Islamic Sharia law *explicitly* give lesser status to women! And Islam *is* irrational and primitive (so is Christianity, since you ask). Islam certainly *is* inferior as a system for running a country to Western secular, liberal democracy.
3) "Islam seem as violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism ..."
Well sorry, but it is fair enough to say that mainstream Islam *does* have such tendencies. Anyone heard of Islamic State?
4) "Islam seen as a political ideology ..."
Well it very often is! Sorry, but mainstream Islam does not recognise church/state separation, and Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood **are** political!
Now, note that all of the above are about Islam the ideology, and about whether criticisms of the ideology are legitimate and valid. **That** is what Runnymede call "Islamophobia". The term is *not* just about spitting on a woman wearing a veil, the usage of the term is quite blatantly an attempt to disallow entirely legitimate criticism of Islam.
http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/islamophobia.pdf
4
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
And who do you suppose is going to be responsible for that reform? You? Of course not. Any such 'reform' (and there are plenty of open, tolerant, already-reformed mosques and imams and believers in the world, believe it or not) will be driven by Muslims themselves. And in what conditions would such reform thrive, Coel? Conditions of suspicion and hatred, or conditions of open and tolerant acceptance of people wishing to begin a new life?
Note that doesn't equate to acceptance of practices which are incompatible with our way of life - universal suffrage and the right of children to education for example are keystones of our own culture and of course this must be accepted by any newcomers in the same way as our other laws. We have systems for criminal justice, education, health and social care: adequately funded, they would be perfectly capable of servicing the needs of all British citizens, while helping to ensure smooth integration for newcomers to our shores. A different topic perhaps.
But it's worrying that a narrative has emerged in which it is assumed that refugees wish overwhelmingly to impose their way of life upon us. This narrative is brutally clear in the above article and in the author's preceding writings. This view is becoming mainstream, and as Ramblin Dave points out, this is a truly terrifying and imminent prospect.
Luke
Edited to add: please, please, stop discussing f*cking semantics. Your genuine contributions to the discussion are overshadowed by your pedantry.
> If we interpret "criticism of the content of the Koran" in a more general sense to mean reform of the Islamic religion to make it more pluralist and tolerant, then I'd suggest that this is indeed a necessary part of working towards a solution.
And who do you suppose is going to be responsible for that reform? You? Of course not. Any such 'reform' (and there are plenty of open, tolerant, already-reformed mosques and imams and believers in the world, believe it or not) will be driven by Muslims themselves. And in what conditions would such reform thrive, Coel? Conditions of suspicion and hatred, or conditions of open and tolerant acceptance of people wishing to begin a new life?
Note that doesn't equate to acceptance of practices which are incompatible with our way of life - universal suffrage and the right of children to education for example are keystones of our own culture and of course this must be accepted by any newcomers in the same way as our other laws. We have systems for criminal justice, education, health and social care: adequately funded, they would be perfectly capable of servicing the needs of all British citizens, while helping to ensure smooth integration for newcomers to our shores. A different topic perhaps.
But it's worrying that a narrative has emerged in which it is assumed that refugees wish overwhelmingly to impose their way of life upon us. This narrative is brutally clear in the above article and in the author's preceding writings. This view is becoming mainstream, and as Ramblin Dave points out, this is a truly terrifying and imminent prospect.
Luke
Edited to add: please, please, stop discussing f*cking semantics. Your genuine contributions to the discussion are overshadowed by your pedantry.
Post edited at 17:38
3
3
In reply to Bootrock:
Bootrock Bingo!!!! What's the prize? A months subscription to Breitbart Europe Extra?
Personally, I'm just gunning for Morris dancing as it just looks so silly. I apologise if you have bells on your knees right now in an attempt to help keep up European culture and traditions, but come on, dude - the hanky waving!? Seriously?
> wet lettuce, limp wristed, liberal, tree hugging, special snowflake, granola eating lefty apologists emotionally knee jerking about it.
Bootrock Bingo!!!! What's the prize? A months subscription to Breitbart Europe Extra?
> And are to thank for the slow death of European culture and traditions.
Personally, I'm just gunning for Morris dancing as it just looks so silly. I apologise if you have bells on your knees right now in an attempt to help keep up European culture and traditions, but come on, dude - the hanky waving!? Seriously?
4
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Doh! You beat me to it. You get the months subscription to Breitbart Extra, you lucky lucky laddie!
> house!
Doh! You beat me to it. You get the months subscription to Breitbart Extra, you lucky lucky laddie!
3
1
In reply to Bootrock:
What an extraordinarily stupid leap of faith you've taken there, to equate my unease at mainstream acceptance of racism, with a suggestion that I think *any* of the above are ok, or the even more childish inference that it's ok to have such extreme right-wing views because 'the Moslems' are responsible for the above. Genuinely extraordinary.
> Let's be completely clear: suggesting mass slaughter is the only conclusion to a rising Muslim population within Europe, amounts to an endorsement by proxy.
> But it's ok for Moslems to proclaim death to the west, death to the western values and democracy?
> It's ok for moslems to attack innocent civilians because they don't share the same view?
> It's ok for Moslems to cut off people's heads in streets?
> It's ok for Moslems to suggest mass slaughter and out breeding the west?
> It's ok for Moslems to block fire escapes at an all girls school and set fire to it?
> It's ok for Moslems to burn school teachers to death?
> It's ok for Moslems to use kids with Down syndrome as a walking IED?
> It's ok for Moslems to preach hatred in our schools and prisons?
> It's ok for moslems to attack innocent civilians because they don't share the same view?
> It's ok for Moslems to cut off people's heads in streets?
> It's ok for Moslems to suggest mass slaughter and out breeding the west?
> It's ok for Moslems to block fire escapes at an all girls school and set fire to it?
> It's ok for Moslems to burn school teachers to death?
> It's ok for Moslems to use kids with Down syndrome as a walking IED?
> It's ok for Moslems to preach hatred in our schools and prisons?
What an extraordinarily stupid leap of faith you've taken there, to equate my unease at mainstream acceptance of racism, with a suggestion that I think *any* of the above are ok, or the even more childish inference that it's ok to have such extreme right-wing views because 'the Moslems' are responsible for the above. Genuinely extraordinary.
4
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
The reformers and apostates of the Islam world. The people like Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Maryam Namazie -- you know, the people who get called "Islamophobic" and get death threats for suggesting that Islam needs reform.
These are the people who are *least* in favour of any criticism of Islam being met with cries of "Islamophobia" and "ooh you racist!".
> And who do you suppose is going to be responsible for that reform?
The reformers and apostates of the Islam world. The people like Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Maryam Namazie -- you know, the people who get called "Islamophobic" and get death threats for suggesting that Islam needs reform.
These are the people who are *least* in favour of any criticism of Islam being met with cries of "Islamophobia" and "ooh you racist!".
6
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
It really is simple.
If you say, i don't like the religion of Islam because of a, b, and c, you are a 'critic of religion'.
If you say, i don't like muslims because of a, b, and c, and further qualify that statement by attaching negative atributes and generalitations to all of them, and use those atributes to further qualify forms of discrimination against all of them, then you are a racist.
Or another example.
I hate Ireland because it's always cold and raining and the only food available is potatoes = Valid critic of a country
I hate the Irish because they are all pikey rowdy gingers perma-drank on guiness who will rob you given half a chance = racism
You can argue all day that being Irish is not a race, and therefore you are not racist, but being racist, as what race is itself, is a wider term than just having a very specific definition.
That is why words like Islamphobia and Anti-semitism come to exist, as a response to people going "nooooo... I am not racist, judaism is not a race, and so me chanting 'gas the Jews' is not racist at all"
It really is simple.
If you say, i don't like the religion of Islam because of a, b, and c, you are a 'critic of religion'.
If you say, i don't like muslims because of a, b, and c, and further qualify that statement by attaching negative atributes and generalitations to all of them, and use those atributes to further qualify forms of discrimination against all of them, then you are a racist.
Or another example.
I hate Ireland because it's always cold and raining and the only food available is potatoes = Valid critic of a country
I hate the Irish because they are all pikey rowdy gingers perma-drank on guiness who will rob you given half a chance = racism
You can argue all day that being Irish is not a race, and therefore you are not racist, but being racist, as what race is itself, is a wider term than just having a very specific definition.
That is why words like Islamphobia and Anti-semitism come to exist, as a response to people going "nooooo... I am not racist, judaism is not a race, and so me chanting 'gas the Jews' is not racist at all"
6
6
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Christ you really are a bigot aren't you. Cheers for clearing it up; I'd suspected some redeeming features existed but you really can't get over yourself can you.
Christ you really are a bigot aren't you. Cheers for clearing it up; I'd suspected some redeeming features existed but you really can't get over yourself can you.
1
11
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I agree. But the problem is people apply the term 'racist' at the drop of a hat to things that are not necessarily racist. lt stops people voicing their opinions and inhibits the freedom of debate. Furthermore there are categories of assault: common assault, ABH, GBH. There are no categories of racism. If I were to say 'Black people are lazy' is racist, so is me saying 'I want to kill all black people because they are black". Both statements are racist and grouped together in speech. But which is worse? Clearly the latter.
I will give you an anecdotal story. My stepfather is a hardcore conservative farmer. He often questions border controls and he questions immigration policy. He says things that I can guarantee some would cry 'racist'. But he is quite clearly not a racist. He's so used to those with opinions like his being labelled as such that the term has become almost a positive endorsement of an argument for him. Opponents don't target his arguments they just label him and try to disregard his argument as a result. The conversation moves from the argument in question to whether or not he has said something racist and the former issue is never resolved.
The point I'm making is that perhaps we should spend less time analysing whether someone is racist/sexist/homophobic/white/black/purple and more time on their actual points. This is where I believe we have fallen down in the last few years. The 'little people' that Farage talks about exist. But they are not who he thinks they are... they are the labelled... they are those who never got a straight answer to why it's best for the economy to allow more immigration. They are those who asked the question and never got as far as birth rates etc etc before they were called 'racists'. More accurately, they are the 'belittled people'.
> Ironically your viewpoint is consistent with an attempt to control speech.
> There are degrees of racism, just as there are degrees of seriousness for assault, for example. A criminal is a criminal; it's not unfair to label someone who's broken the law as such, and even a kid can understand the difference between a bad act, and a really bad act.
I agree. But the problem is people apply the term 'racist' at the drop of a hat to things that are not necessarily racist. lt stops people voicing their opinions and inhibits the freedom of debate. Furthermore there are categories of assault: common assault, ABH, GBH. There are no categories of racism. If I were to say 'Black people are lazy' is racist, so is me saying 'I want to kill all black people because they are black". Both statements are racist and grouped together in speech. But which is worse? Clearly the latter.
I will give you an anecdotal story. My stepfather is a hardcore conservative farmer. He often questions border controls and he questions immigration policy. He says things that I can guarantee some would cry 'racist'. But he is quite clearly not a racist. He's so used to those with opinions like his being labelled as such that the term has become almost a positive endorsement of an argument for him. Opponents don't target his arguments they just label him and try to disregard his argument as a result. The conversation moves from the argument in question to whether or not he has said something racist and the former issue is never resolved.
The point I'm making is that perhaps we should spend less time analysing whether someone is racist/sexist/homophobic/white/black/purple and more time on their actual points. This is where I believe we have fallen down in the last few years. The 'little people' that Farage talks about exist. But they are not who he thinks they are... they are the labelled... they are those who never got a straight answer to why it's best for the economy to allow more immigration. They are those who asked the question and never got as far as birth rates etc etc before they were called 'racists'. More accurately, they are the 'belittled people'.
Post edited at 18:01
5
In reply to TobyA:
So lets just recap.
In Saudi Arabia a woman is in jail for going outside without covering her hair. And yet if you suggest that Islam is sexist you are, according to Runnymede, "Islamophobic".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/12/saudi-arabia-headscarf-woman-...
In Mauritania a blogger is on death row for "apostasy". And yet if you suggest that Islam does not share values of individual liberty and free speech then you are, according to Runnymede, "Islamophobic".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-37975552
The Muslim Brotherhood is an openly political Islamist and political movement that has held power in Egypt, and yet, if one suggests that Islam has a political aspect then you are, according to Runnymede, "Islamophobic".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Egypt
And in Iraq and Syria, ISIS have been imposing a hugely violent and hugely oppressive interpretation of 7th-centuy ideology, yet if you suggest that Islam has aspects that are aggressive or violent or primitive, then you are, according to Runnymede, "Islamophobic".
So lets just recap.
In Saudi Arabia a woman is in jail for going outside without covering her hair. And yet if you suggest that Islam is sexist you are, according to Runnymede, "Islamophobic".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/12/saudi-arabia-headscarf-woman-...
In Mauritania a blogger is on death row for "apostasy". And yet if you suggest that Islam does not share values of individual liberty and free speech then you are, according to Runnymede, "Islamophobic".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-37975552
The Muslim Brotherhood is an openly political Islamist and political movement that has held power in Egypt, and yet, if one suggests that Islam has a political aspect then you are, according to Runnymede, "Islamophobic".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Muslim_Brotherhood_in_Egypt
And in Iraq and Syria, ISIS have been imposing a hugely violent and hugely oppressive interpretation of 7th-centuy ideology, yet if you suggest that Islam has aspects that are aggressive or violent or primitive, then you are, according to Runnymede, "Islamophobic".
8
1
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Thoughtful reply, thanks.
For me the problem is simply that those responsible for the narrative shown above, genuinely *are* racist, and use clever words and tactics to slither out of owning responsibility for their hateful opinions. Their intentions are vile; they are bereft of compassion and they capitalise on fear to increase their power. Writers such as Steyn and Delingpole. Media owners such as Bannon and Murdoch. Politicians such as Trump, Farage. They represent the thin end of the wedge.
Reasonable concerns over the process of integration and control are ducked by weak, spending-averse Government, and it is all to easy for alt-right / fascist agitators to leverage these concerns using preferential media reporting and inflammatory rhetoric. This slow creep of far-right attitude seems to have invaded much of our culture and media, to the extent that it is becoming the new normal.
Thoughtful reply, thanks.
For me the problem is simply that those responsible for the narrative shown above, genuinely *are* racist, and use clever words and tactics to slither out of owning responsibility for their hateful opinions. Their intentions are vile; they are bereft of compassion and they capitalise on fear to increase their power. Writers such as Steyn and Delingpole. Media owners such as Bannon and Murdoch. Politicians such as Trump, Farage. They represent the thin end of the wedge.
Reasonable concerns over the process of integration and control are ducked by weak, spending-averse Government, and it is all to easy for alt-right / fascist agitators to leverage these concerns using preferential media reporting and inflammatory rhetoric. This slow creep of far-right attitude seems to have invaded much of our culture and media, to the extent that it is becoming the new normal.
2
5
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Coel, you can't just say "Islam does not accept", who is Islam? How many divisions does he have?
Some (not, many thankfully) Muslims believe that Jihad against the infidel is a personal obligation for all believers akin to the 5 pillars. Others believe and teach that you should follow the laws of the ruler you live under regardless (Allah is all omniscient and who are we to questions his plan). Others believe that a if a ruler is just, you are obligated to follow their rules (including not attacking satirical magazines and just tutting and rolling your eyes when someone takes the lord's name in vain), not if they are not. And so it goes on. If you want to build a strawman and say "this is Islam" before you knock him over, go ahead - but I reckon the time could be used more productively elsewhere.
The UK and US have launched military attacks on Middle Eastern countries and have killed thousands (tens of...? hundreds of...?) civilians in the process - what part of our ideology led to that? Liberal democracy? Secularism? Nationalism? Imperialism?
But are they religious? Ask in the right (Saudi) circles and you'll rustle up an ulema who say no.
I'm not particularly interested in trying to defend a 20 year old report's definition of Islamophobia, most people know what the word means now which is being horrible to Muslims because they are Muslims. Don't be horrible to Muslims because they are Muslim and you're not being Islamophobic.
BTW, if you get chance you should really have a listen to the BBC World Service "Islam, people and power" series that they've just 'dropped' as a 'boxset' - World Service's terms not mine! http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04fsh71/episodes/guide It really is a good antidote to any essentialist tendencies when we discuss these things and totally distracted me when vacuuming the house yesterday.
> but, mainstream Islam certainly does have many values opposed to Western values. Most obvious are the rights to apostasy and blasphemy, and free-speech right to criticise Islam, which Islam does not accept.
Coel, you can't just say "Islam does not accept", who is Islam? How many divisions does he have?
Some (not, many thankfully) Muslims believe that Jihad against the infidel is a personal obligation for all believers akin to the 5 pillars. Others believe and teach that you should follow the laws of the ruler you live under regardless (Allah is all omniscient and who are we to questions his plan). Others believe that a if a ruler is just, you are obligated to follow their rules (including not attacking satirical magazines and just tutting and rolling your eyes when someone takes the lord's name in vain), not if they are not. And so it goes on. If you want to build a strawman and say "this is Islam" before you knock him over, go ahead - but I reckon the time could be used more productively elsewhere.
> 3) "Islam seem as violent, aggressive, supportive of terrorism ..."
> Well sorry, but it is fair enough to say that mainstream Islam *does* have such tendencies. Anyone heard of Islamic State?
> Well sorry, but it is fair enough to say that mainstream Islam *does* have such tendencies. Anyone heard of Islamic State?
The UK and US have launched military attacks on Middle Eastern countries and have killed thousands (tens of...? hundreds of...?) civilians in the process - what part of our ideology led to that? Liberal democracy? Secularism? Nationalism? Imperialism?
> and Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood **are** political!
But are they religious? Ask in the right (Saudi) circles and you'll rustle up an ulema who say no.
I'm not particularly interested in trying to defend a 20 year old report's definition of Islamophobia, most people know what the word means now which is being horrible to Muslims because they are Muslims. Don't be horrible to Muslims because they are Muslim and you're not being Islamophobic.
BTW, if you get chance you should really have a listen to the BBC World Service "Islam, people and power" series that they've just 'dropped' as a 'boxset' - World Service's terms not mine! http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04fsh71/episodes/guide It really is a good antidote to any essentialist tendencies when we discuss these things and totally distracted me when vacuuming the house yesterday.
3
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-37975552
And which organisations are taking a lead in actually fighting such disgusting occurrences, as opposed to merely moaning about them to prove a very narrow point (i.e. that some Islamist groups are reprehensible)? UKIP? Ever see a campaign for donations to free a prisoner of conscience in the Mail or similar rags ? No. You'll find it's the limp-wristed 'liberal' groups such as Amnesty International.
Cheers.
> In Mauritania a blogger is on death row for "apostasy". And yet if you suggest that Islam does not share values of individual liberty and free speech then you are, according to Runnymede, "Islamophobic".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-37975552
And which organisations are taking a lead in actually fighting such disgusting occurrences, as opposed to merely moaning about them to prove a very narrow point (i.e. that some Islamist groups are reprehensible)? UKIP? Ever see a campaign for donations to free a prisoner of conscience in the Mail or similar rags ? No. You'll find it's the limp-wristed 'liberal' groups such as Amnesty International.
Cheers.
1
1
In reply to TobyA:
I several times used the phrase "mainstream Islam". Where I used "Islam" it was a shorthand for that. Over twenty Islamic countries have laws against apostasy, which supports my contention that mainstream Islam does not support Western values of free speech and freedom of conscience.
But pointing to differences between brands of Islam as a reason for saying that one can never criticise Islam doesn't really work.
That is not how the word is used! See, for example, the Demos think tank report.
> Coel, you can't just say "Islam does not accept", who is Islam?
I several times used the phrase "mainstream Islam". Where I used "Islam" it was a shorthand for that. Over twenty Islamic countries have laws against apostasy, which supports my contention that mainstream Islam does not support Western values of free speech and freedom of conscience.
But pointing to differences between brands of Islam as a reason for saying that one can never criticise Islam doesn't really work.
> Don't be horrible to Muslims because they are Muslim and you're not being Islamophobic.
That is not how the word is used! See, for example, the Demos think tank report.
2
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Yes, agreed. A lot of them probably are racist. However, again I have an issue with the term. People seem to me to be afraid of change, afraid of difference. I personally have wondered if this is an evolved trait. For example, it would probably not be beneficial to a tribe to welcome a type of peoples with a different culture and different way of doing things to yours. It may harm your survival.
I think by extension to the modern day that you and I both will have thought or said things at some point in our lives that could be considered racist. However we have had the good fortune and opportunity to ask questions, to spend time with an array of cultures and races, and critically a good enough education to understand the differences are in most cases very shallow. I think people like my stepdad have not. They fear change and they see black people/muslims/jews as change personified. I don't think they can be judged for this fear. And so I don't think it's fair to label them. Far better to educate. As a result I would never rarely refer to them as racist, and more likely as ignorant.
Yes, agreed. A lot of them probably are racist. However, again I have an issue with the term. People seem to me to be afraid of change, afraid of difference. I personally have wondered if this is an evolved trait. For example, it would probably not be beneficial to a tribe to welcome a type of peoples with a different culture and different way of doing things to yours. It may harm your survival.
I think by extension to the modern day that you and I both will have thought or said things at some point in our lives that could be considered racist. However we have had the good fortune and opportunity to ask questions, to spend time with an array of cultures and races, and critically a good enough education to understand the differences are in most cases very shallow. I think people like my stepdad have not. They fear change and they see black people/muslims/jews as change personified. I don't think they can be judged for this fear. And so I don't think it's fair to label them. Far better to educate. As a result I would never rarely refer to them as racist, and more likely as ignorant.
Post edited at 18:27
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I'm trying to work out if you means this seriously in some way? I think you are mixing up "people from Muslim backgrounds that I have heard of" with "religious reformers". As at least two of the people you mention there are IIRC self declared non-believers I suspect their suggestions on how to reform Islam will be met with more than a little bemusement.
Anyway, reformation is always a bit hit and miss, for each Rida you get a Qutb, for each George Fox you get a Luther. Actually, thinking about it, far more miss than hit I reckon.
> "And who do you suppose is going to be responsible for that reform?"
> The reformers and apostates of the Islam world. The people like Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and Maryam Namazie -- you know, the people who get called "Islamophobic" and get death threats for suggesting that Islam needs reform.
I'm trying to work out if you means this seriously in some way? I think you are mixing up "people from Muslim backgrounds that I have heard of" with "religious reformers". As at least two of the people you mention there are IIRC self declared non-believers I suspect their suggestions on how to reform Islam will be met with more than a little bemusement.
Anyway, reformation is always a bit hit and miss, for each Rida you get a Qutb, for each George Fox you get a Luther. Actually, thinking about it, far more miss than hit I reckon.
1
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Oooh you racist!! You just called the mores, laws and religion of Mauritania "disgusting"!! You racist! You Islamophobe!
By the way, secular and humanist organisations do a lot of campaigning on such issues. And yes, Amnesty does also (when it's not being too ideological).
> And which organisations are taking a lead in actually fighting such disgusting occurrences, ...
Oooh you racist!! You just called the mores, laws and religion of Mauritania "disgusting"!! You racist! You Islamophobe!
By the way, secular and humanist organisations do a lot of campaigning on such issues. And yes, Amnesty does also (when it's not being too ideological).
4
3
In reply to TobyA:
If, for example, someone said US republicans support freedom to own guns, would you similarly quibble that there are a few republicans in Arizona who don't as a counter argument? I doubt it. It is quite reasonable to treat the main criticise the main teachings.of typical Islam without always highlighting the exceptions.
If, for example, someone said US republicans support freedom to own guns, would you similarly quibble that there are a few republicans in Arizona who don't as a counter argument? I doubt it. It is quite reasonable to treat the main criticise the main teachings.of typical Islam without always highlighting the exceptions.
1
In reply to TobyA:
I'm serious.
They are just examples. There are lots of others.
You might be surprised. We're told that the samizdat Arabic translation of The God Delusion has been downloaded over 10 million times. There are plenty in the Islamic world who see the defects in Islam -- they are not all idiots you know.
> I'm trying to work out if you means this seriously in some way?
I'm serious.
> I think you are mixing up "people from Muslim backgrounds that I have heard of" with "religious reformers".
They are just examples. There are lots of others.
> As at least two of the people you mention there are IIRC self declared non-believers I suspect their suggestions on how to reform Islam will be met with more than a little bemusement.
You might be surprised. We're told that the samizdat Arabic translation of The God Delusion has been downloaded over 10 million times. There are plenty in the Islamic world who see the defects in Islam -- they are not all idiots you know.
1
1
In reply to A Longleat Boulderer:
Great reply. Thanks for clarifying your position.
Absolutely.
Great reply. Thanks for clarifying your position.
> Far better to educate.
Absolutely.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
What is "mainstream Islam" though either? KSA and Iran probably have horrible laws against blasphemy but which one represents mainstream Islam?
I just looked on Wikipedia to see where else has some kind of blasphemy laws, and it seems 20 European countries still have some form of law!
But anyway, the fact remains that there isn't any single or majority view on how Muslims should relate to the political systems they live under. Most just follow the laws of the country they live in, be that Saudi or Sweden.
> I several times used the phrase "mainstream Islam". Where I used "Islam" it was a shorthand for that. Over twenty Islamic countries have laws against apostasy, which supports my contention that mainstream Islam does not support Western values of free speech and freedom of conscience.
What is "mainstream Islam" though either? KSA and Iran probably have horrible laws against blasphemy but which one represents mainstream Islam?
I just looked on Wikipedia to see where else has some kind of blasphemy laws, and it seems 20 European countries still have some form of law!
But anyway, the fact remains that there isn't any single or majority view on how Muslims should relate to the political systems they live under. Most just follow the laws of the country they live in, be that Saudi or Sweden.
2
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
May we assume that you would similarly argue that the pedlars of violence amongst the Islamic fundamentalists(daesh, IS, al quaeda - call them what you like) who make no secret of their hatred of Christians and other religious groups who choose not to follow their creed are racist?
May we assume that you would similarly argue that the pedlars of violence amongst the Islamic fundamentalists(daesh, IS, al quaeda - call them what you like) who make no secret of their hatred of Christians and other religious groups who choose not to follow their creed are racist?
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Sarcasm aside: such abuses are completely predictable when *any* dogmatic entity also has political power. It's the entire reason that secularism works to produce a more equal society. If you want to see the grossest imbalances between rich and poor, you only have to look at countries and regions which are either deeply religious, or deeply dogmatic in some other way.
Caste systems, religion, political dead-ends (i.e. fascism, communism), personality cults... Give these systems power without appropriate checks and balances and you'll find people who don't subscribe to the mainstream view being oppressed, itself a disgusting concept never mind the actual means of achieving such oppression.
Which leads back to how the mainstream view in the UK and the Western world at large, is changing - in my mind for the worse. Have you any actual comment on this, specifically? It's why I started the thread after all.
> Oooh you racist!! You just called the mores, laws and religion of Mauritania "disgusting"!! You racist! You Islamophobe!
Sarcasm aside: such abuses are completely predictable when *any* dogmatic entity also has political power. It's the entire reason that secularism works to produce a more equal society. If you want to see the grossest imbalances between rich and poor, you only have to look at countries and regions which are either deeply religious, or deeply dogmatic in some other way.
Caste systems, religion, political dead-ends (i.e. fascism, communism), personality cults... Give these systems power without appropriate checks and balances and you'll find people who don't subscribe to the mainstream view being oppressed, itself a disgusting concept never mind the actual means of achieving such oppression.
Which leads back to how the mainstream view in the UK and the Western world at large, is changing - in my mind for the worse. Have you any actual comment on this, specifically? It's why I started the thread after all.
1
2
In reply to TobyA:
A relic of the time when Christianity was just as intolerant as Islam is today. Few of those laws in Europe are enforced (and any attempt to enforce them might fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights).
How different that is from a place like Pakistan where blasphemy laws are a real and oppressive reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Pakistan
"Over 60 people accused of blasphemy have been murdered before their respective trials were over,[2][3] and prominent figures who opposed the blasphemy law have been assassinated.[1] Since 1990, 62 people have been murdered as a result of blasphemy allegations."
> I just looked on Wikipedia to see where else has some kind of blasphemy laws, and it seems 20 European countries still have some form of law!
A relic of the time when Christianity was just as intolerant as Islam is today. Few of those laws in Europe are enforced (and any attempt to enforce them might fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights).
How different that is from a place like Pakistan where blasphemy laws are a real and oppressive reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_Pakistan
"Over 60 people accused of blasphemy have been murdered before their respective trials were over,[2][3] and prominent figures who opposed the blasphemy law have been assassinated.[1] Since 1990, 62 people have been murdered as a result of blasphemy allegations."
1
1
In reply to MG:
I don't think there are any Arizona republicans who think that.
But seriously, we are talking about a religion of 1.2 billion people that is not in any way coherent or rational. It is based to some degree on how those 1,2 bn people choose to interpret a 1,300 year old text and what they feel in their hearts/minds, but far more it is based on how they act in the real world day in day out, and particularly how they react to the political, social and economic power structures around them. What are the main teachings of typical Islam? OK, prayer, pilgrimage, alms, fasting and the Shahada - but how do we get from there to what Muslims say about blasphemy vis a vis following the laws of the country where you live? There isn't typicality in that response - the Qur'an doesn't give simple answers on those things.
I don't think there are any Arizona republicans who think that.
But seriously, we are talking about a religion of 1.2 billion people that is not in any way coherent or rational. It is based to some degree on how those 1,2 bn people choose to interpret a 1,300 year old text and what they feel in their hearts/minds, but far more it is based on how they act in the real world day in day out, and particularly how they react to the political, social and economic power structures around them. What are the main teachings of typical Islam? OK, prayer, pilgrimage, alms, fasting and the Shahada - but how do we get from there to what Muslims say about blasphemy vis a vis following the laws of the country where you live? There isn't typicality in that response - the Qur'an doesn't give simple answers on those things.
1
1
In reply to FesteringSore:
Yes, absolutely. And I'm grateful that you've actually taken the time to ask. Many on this thread haven't bothered. Insultingly, they've taken no time to find out anything about my viewpoints other than seizing upon my unease with incipient racism, and equating that with weakness or even apologism for horrors committed in the name of Islam.
Luke
> May we assume that you would similarly argue that the pedlars of violence amongst the Islamic fundamentalists(daesh, IS, al quaeda - call them what you like) who make no secret of their hatred of Christians and other religious groups who choose not to follow their creed are racist?
Yes, absolutely. And I'm grateful that you've actually taken the time to ask. Many on this thread haven't bothered. Insultingly, they've taken no time to find out anything about my viewpoints other than seizing upon my unease with incipient racism, and equating that with weakness or even apologism for horrors committed in the name of Islam.
Luke
2
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
So, then, you agree that the typical systems of government in majority-Muslim countries are a lot less good than secular, pluralistic democracies?
If so, that's enough to get you labelled an "Islamophobe" according to the Runnymede Trust definition.
I'm not convinced that things are getting worse in the UK and Europe. Some fringe groups are gaining standing simply because the mainstream politicians refuse to discuss the obvious.
> Sarcasm aside: such abuses are completely predictable when *any* dogmatic entity also has political power. It's the entire reason that secularism works to produce a more equal society.
So, then, you agree that the typical systems of government in majority-Muslim countries are a lot less good than secular, pluralistic democracies?
If so, that's enough to get you labelled an "Islamophobe" according to the Runnymede Trust definition.
> Which leads back to how the mainstream view in the UK and the Western world at large, is changing - in my mind for the worse. Have you any actual comment on this, specifically?
I'm not convinced that things are getting worse in the UK and Europe. Some fringe groups are gaining standing simply because the mainstream politicians refuse to discuss the obvious.
1
1
In reply to Bootrock:
Why do you persist (here, and on any poppy related threads) with the idea that the definition of a word is all that there is? Have you never heard in your entire life of a connotation? The connotation of a word is just as real as the definition, and to ignore it when pertinent (which is what you do here) is either highly disingenuous or highly ignorant (you get to choose).
The connotation of the word 'muslim' is that of an Arabic or East African practitioner of Islam. To use the word 'muslim' implies (crucially - even if you do not wish that). That is how language works - the generally accepted meaning (meaning being composed of the definition + connotation) IS the meaning. So if most people think 'muslim' means something (even if the dictionary doesn't have that), that's what it means!
The article in question is deliberately using the connotation of the word, and offering no disambiguation (on purpose) in order to benefit from the ambiguity (i.e. the target audience can read the connoted message, but people such as yourself can point to the definition and say "The article doesn't mean that!"). That's a really dirty tactic.
> You can't be racist against a religion. A religion is made up of many races. Is it religionist to dislike Islam?
Why do you persist (here, and on any poppy related threads) with the idea that the definition of a word is all that there is? Have you never heard in your entire life of a connotation? The connotation of a word is just as real as the definition, and to ignore it when pertinent (which is what you do here) is either highly disingenuous or highly ignorant (you get to choose).
The connotation of the word 'muslim' is that of an Arabic or East African practitioner of Islam. To use the word 'muslim' implies (crucially - even if you do not wish that). That is how language works - the generally accepted meaning (meaning being composed of the definition + connotation) IS the meaning. So if most people think 'muslim' means something (even if the dictionary doesn't have that), that's what it means!
The article in question is deliberately using the connotation of the word, and offering no disambiguation (on purpose) in order to benefit from the ambiguity (i.e. the target audience can read the connoted message, but people such as yourself can point to the definition and say "The article doesn't mean that!"). That's a really dirty tactic.
3
4
In reply to TobyA:
You seem to think that in Muslim-majority nations the laws are somehow nothing to do with Islam.
But, to answer your question, one can ask the clerics in the relevant country. Are they supporters of the blasphemy laws or do they regularly condemn them? If there is a spread of opinion among clerics, one can see what the majority view is. [And in Pakistan, for example, the clerics are overwhelmingly in favour of the very harsh blasphemy laws. Even suggesting that the laws should be repealed is itself so blasphemous that you can get murdered for saying it.]
Are you really suggesting that apostasy and blasphemy laws in Islamic nations are nothing to do with Islam?
> but how do we get from there to what Muslims say about blasphemy vis a vis following the laws of the country where you live?
You seem to think that in Muslim-majority nations the laws are somehow nothing to do with Islam.
But, to answer your question, one can ask the clerics in the relevant country. Are they supporters of the blasphemy laws or do they regularly condemn them? If there is a spread of opinion among clerics, one can see what the majority view is. [And in Pakistan, for example, the clerics are overwhelmingly in favour of the very harsh blasphemy laws. Even suggesting that the laws should be repealed is itself so blasphemous that you can get murdered for saying it.]
Are you really suggesting that apostasy and blasphemy laws in Islamic nations are nothing to do with Islam?
3
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Interesting, are you suggesting that those who don't agree with you are idiots?
But we don't seem to moving on in this discussion really. It's odd, it seems to me that you view religion in the same way lots of religious people do - in essentialist terms - odd in the sense that you are an outspoken atheists. Hmmm...
OK, I'm out - need to cook tea!
> There are plenty in the Islamic world who see the defects in Islam -- they are not all idiots you know.
Interesting, are you suggesting that those who don't agree with you are idiots?
But we don't seem to moving on in this discussion really. It's odd, it seems to me that you view religion in the same way lots of religious people do - in essentialist terms - odd in the sense that you are an outspoken atheists. Hmmm...
OK, I'm out - need to cook tea!
1
1
In reply to TobyA:
What I'm suggesting is that not all of them simply switch their brains off and believe whatever Islam tells them to, and that plenty of them do think about Islam and whether it is good and true and do see its defects.
Not at all, but "Islam" across the world does have enough similarities to enable us to talk about "Islam". Ditto "Sikhism" or "capitalism" or "communism" or "vegetarianism" and many other things. Why is it that it's only when the topic is Islam do people try to disallow criticism by this method?
> Interesting, are you suggesting that those who don't agree with you are idiots?
What I'm suggesting is that not all of them simply switch their brains off and believe whatever Islam tells them to, and that plenty of them do think about Islam and whether it is good and true and do see its defects.
> It's odd, it seems to me that you view religion in the same way lots of religious people do - in essentialist terms -
Not at all, but "Islam" across the world does have enough similarities to enable us to talk about "Islam". Ditto "Sikhism" or "capitalism" or "communism" or "vegetarianism" and many other things. Why is it that it's only when the topic is Islam do people try to disallow criticism by this method?
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Of course not, but because Muslims don't and can't agree on what Islam is, you get different laws in different countries, and different tendencies on how strictly to enforce those laws. It's also cyclical as to how much governments in Muslim majority countries claim their laws are inspired by Islam or not, i.e. Egypt under Nasser and Sadat.
> You seem to think that in Muslim-majority nations the laws are somehow nothing to do with Islam.
Of course not, but because Muslims don't and can't agree on what Islam is, you get different laws in different countries, and different tendencies on how strictly to enforce those laws. It's also cyclical as to how much governments in Muslim majority countries claim their laws are inspired by Islam or not, i.e. Egypt under Nasser and Sadat.
2
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
OK, but I still don't know what you mean by "mainstream Islam".
> Not at all, but "Islam" across the world does have enough similarities to enable us to talk about "Islam".
OK, but I still don't know what you mean by "mainstream Islam".
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Thank heavens - I read it the same way, but was starting to think I'd misread the piece.
BTW, on the topic of the people/religion distinction, Maajid Nawaz puts it rather nicely. He says if you say smoking is bad it's not the same as as saying smokers are bad people. It's not an exact analogy because smoking is an act and religion is an idea, but it's pretty good.
> Just for the sake of clarity, the quote isn't a call by the author for muslims to be killed, it's the author's opinion as to what the serb's concluded
Thank heavens - I read it the same way, but was starting to think I'd misread the piece.
BTW, on the topic of the people/religion distinction, Maajid Nawaz puts it rather nicely. He says if you say smoking is bad it's not the same as as saying smokers are bad people. It's not an exact analogy because smoking is an act and religion is an idea, but it's pretty good.
1
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Of course.
I couldn't give two hoots what the Runnymede Trust thinks of my opinions.
Fringe groups. Such as President-elect Trump. Mr Farage. Ms LePen. This is my point, and it's deeply obvious: the fringe *IS BECOMING* the mainstream.
> So, then, you agree that the typical systems of government in majority-Muslim countries are a lot less good than secular, pluralistic democracies?
Of course.
> If so, that's enough to get you labelled an "Islamophobe" according to the Runnymede Trust definition.
I couldn't give two hoots what the Runnymede Trust thinks of my opinions.
> I'm not convinced that things are getting worse in the UK and Europe. Some fringe groups are gaining standing simply because the mainstream politicians refuse to discuss the obvious.
Fringe groups. Such as President-elect Trump. Mr Farage. Ms LePen. This is my point, and it's deeply obvious: the fringe *IS BECOMING* the mainstream.
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Spot on Tom, by far the best post on this thread I've read so far.
We are also missing the f*ck off big elephant in the room.
This is a collision of two cultures that are almost diametrically opposed to each other in relations to their values. How are we going to integrate when we have little in common? Segregation and a lack of assimilation (both sides are guilty of this) lead to fear and resentment. Neither side seems at all willing to change. There are elements of the indigenous population that do not want to accept a change to their society. However, there are elements of the Islamic influx that don't seem to want anything of the native society apart from gaining their material advantages. I suspect there are plenty of Muslims who would have liked their society to have the benefits of our society in their country. As this isn't easily achievable, how about exporting their society to a country that has what they want? The deluded thing here is, it is our society that created and maintains this by being the way we are and by not being the way they have been. A thousand years ago Baghdad was the cultural centre of the our hemisphere. Then the Imam Hamid al-Ghazali imposed orthodox Islam and said that numbers (yes Arabic mumbers 1 to 9 - zero is also Arabic) were the work of the devil and the region has not recovered since. What a loss to the world!
But back to the point and let's be clear about one thing. There is plenty of hate fuelled rhetoric coming from both sides of the divide. Whether it's Nigel Farage, Anjem Choudary, Donald Trump or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, right through to the ordinary citizens of the world. There is plenty of bigotry all round and some in places you might not expect.
This is going to cause some reaction. Here goes! Within this issue it is actually the "left" who are more guilty of racism. It is the "left" that is bringing colour into this, though I do accept this racism is completely unintentionally. I also accept there are those of a different point of view that are introducing race diliberately, but most know these are idiots.
To quote Murderous_Crow:
"The majority of subscribers to the Islamic faith are black and brown, so let's not mince our words".
No, sorry Murderous_Crow, all subscribers to the Islamic faith are Muslims.
Other posters, such as Coel Hellier, have correctly pointed out that this is about religion (and I know for certain that I don't agree with Coel Hellier about religion too often). There is also a case of "soft bigotry by low expectations" going on here. The "left" seem to think that it's OK that under Sharia Law certain things are acceptable because it's their cultural beliefs. Can you imagine what would happen if someone like me (a white man) said that a women's word is only worth half that of a man's or that adulterers, apostates and gays should be killed. Well I can, those on the "left" (and most on the "right") would rightly be apoplectic in their rage. But it's OK to turn a blind eye to that happening in the Islamic world as that's their culture and it would racist to speak out against it. Bullshit. It's disgusting and has no place in our society, so if you want to be part of our society you need to leave that behind for a start! Saying anything else is in itself a form of bigotry.
Another thing that needs to be understood is that there are elements of the Muslim faith that are Islamists. There are two types of Islamists. One type are the theologians that believe the whole human race should be Islamic or else be second class citizens, known as "dhimma". The other are the Jihadists, who believe the whole human race should be Islamic or exterminated. These are the guys flyng planes into Skyscrapers, suicide bombing trains and busses, shooting French satirists, shooting French kids at a concert, mowing down French or German families with trucks. So, come on "lefties", how about venting your spleen at these guys? Or are you feminist getting your bhurkas ready and have you guy's ordered your knee pads from Amazon yet?
Now, I know some of you will say that I'm tarring all Muslims with the same brush. Well, firstly, I'm not and secondly that's just a weak cop out. There are many moderate Muslims and I have no issue with them, apart from the fact there are not enough of them speaking out against the atrocities that occur within their faith, though some are brave enough.
I am an "atheist" (whatever that means) and most of my views are "left" leaning (again, whatever that means). I don't espouse any doctorine and make my decisions through the arguments of facts. As much as I would like it, I don't see humans abandoning religion anytime soon, especially Islam. My philosophy to religion is live and let live. My philosophy to race is non-existant. I judge people by the "content of their character". But no religion should hold sway on the rights of others, especially if they do not believe in it. The best we can hope for is moderating Islamic zealotry and I can see only one way of doing this. That is to influence the more moderate elements of faith by communication and truly open dialogue, in the hope that they can change their faith from within to be more acceptable to the values of the countries within they would like to live and worship their God. The only other way is by the disgusting methods indicated by the author, which incidently he is only indicating could happen, whether he believes this to be right is not proven by his words.
One thing is for sure though. It will be over my dead body that the Western World returns to the religious zealotry that took us hundreds of years to banish from our society or indeed a racist ideology that cost the lives of 60 million only 70 years ago. Funny how the words Jihad and Kampf have the same meaning, isn't it?
> You don't win arguments by determining something is 'racist' and therefore the debate is over and the person who said it should be jailed, all that happens is people keep their views to themselves and then vote for Brexit or Trump. The mainstream isn't where the left convinced itself it was when Labour and the Democrats were in power, pretending it is isn't going to move it back. . . . . . . So the left needs to engage with the issue and either show that the premise is incorrect or provide a non-violent mechanism to address it or say it must be accepted because the solution is worse than the problem. What it can't do is throw up its hands, declare the argument 'racist' and walk away.
Spot on Tom, by far the best post on this thread I've read so far.
We are also missing the f*ck off big elephant in the room.
This is a collision of two cultures that are almost diametrically opposed to each other in relations to their values. How are we going to integrate when we have little in common? Segregation and a lack of assimilation (both sides are guilty of this) lead to fear and resentment. Neither side seems at all willing to change. There are elements of the indigenous population that do not want to accept a change to their society. However, there are elements of the Islamic influx that don't seem to want anything of the native society apart from gaining their material advantages. I suspect there are plenty of Muslims who would have liked their society to have the benefits of our society in their country. As this isn't easily achievable, how about exporting their society to a country that has what they want? The deluded thing here is, it is our society that created and maintains this by being the way we are and by not being the way they have been. A thousand years ago Baghdad was the cultural centre of the our hemisphere. Then the Imam Hamid al-Ghazali imposed orthodox Islam and said that numbers (yes Arabic mumbers 1 to 9 - zero is also Arabic) were the work of the devil and the region has not recovered since. What a loss to the world!
But back to the point and let's be clear about one thing. There is plenty of hate fuelled rhetoric coming from both sides of the divide. Whether it's Nigel Farage, Anjem Choudary, Donald Trump or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, right through to the ordinary citizens of the world. There is plenty of bigotry all round and some in places you might not expect.
This is going to cause some reaction. Here goes! Within this issue it is actually the "left" who are more guilty of racism. It is the "left" that is bringing colour into this, though I do accept this racism is completely unintentionally. I also accept there are those of a different point of view that are introducing race diliberately, but most know these are idiots.
To quote Murderous_Crow:
"The majority of subscribers to the Islamic faith are black and brown, so let's not mince our words".
No, sorry Murderous_Crow, all subscribers to the Islamic faith are Muslims.
Other posters, such as Coel Hellier, have correctly pointed out that this is about religion (and I know for certain that I don't agree with Coel Hellier about religion too often). There is also a case of "soft bigotry by low expectations" going on here. The "left" seem to think that it's OK that under Sharia Law certain things are acceptable because it's their cultural beliefs. Can you imagine what would happen if someone like me (a white man) said that a women's word is only worth half that of a man's or that adulterers, apostates and gays should be killed. Well I can, those on the "left" (and most on the "right") would rightly be apoplectic in their rage. But it's OK to turn a blind eye to that happening in the Islamic world as that's their culture and it would racist to speak out against it. Bullshit. It's disgusting and has no place in our society, so if you want to be part of our society you need to leave that behind for a start! Saying anything else is in itself a form of bigotry.
Another thing that needs to be understood is that there are elements of the Muslim faith that are Islamists. There are two types of Islamists. One type are the theologians that believe the whole human race should be Islamic or else be second class citizens, known as "dhimma". The other are the Jihadists, who believe the whole human race should be Islamic or exterminated. These are the guys flyng planes into Skyscrapers, suicide bombing trains and busses, shooting French satirists, shooting French kids at a concert, mowing down French or German families with trucks. So, come on "lefties", how about venting your spleen at these guys? Or are you feminist getting your bhurkas ready and have you guy's ordered your knee pads from Amazon yet?
Now, I know some of you will say that I'm tarring all Muslims with the same brush. Well, firstly, I'm not and secondly that's just a weak cop out. There are many moderate Muslims and I have no issue with them, apart from the fact there are not enough of them speaking out against the atrocities that occur within their faith, though some are brave enough.
I am an "atheist" (whatever that means) and most of my views are "left" leaning (again, whatever that means). I don't espouse any doctorine and make my decisions through the arguments of facts. As much as I would like it, I don't see humans abandoning religion anytime soon, especially Islam. My philosophy to religion is live and let live. My philosophy to race is non-existant. I judge people by the "content of their character". But no religion should hold sway on the rights of others, especially if they do not believe in it. The best we can hope for is moderating Islamic zealotry and I can see only one way of doing this. That is to influence the more moderate elements of faith by communication and truly open dialogue, in the hope that they can change their faith from within to be more acceptable to the values of the countries within they would like to live and worship their God. The only other way is by the disgusting methods indicated by the author, which incidently he is only indicating could happen, whether he believes this to be right is not proven by his words.
One thing is for sure though. It will be over my dead body that the Western World returns to the religious zealotry that took us hundreds of years to banish from our society or indeed a racist ideology that cost the lives of 60 million only 70 years ago. Funny how the words Jihad and Kampf have the same meaning, isn't it?
10
1
In reply to TobyA:
It means the characteristics largely in common between Islam as typically believed in major Islam-majority nations such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iraq, etc. Yes, I am aware that there are also things they disagree on.
(The usage would exclude, for example, the Ahmedis, who are a small fraction of total Muslims.)
Would you be as puzzled by the usage "mainstream Christianity", to mean things that most Catholics and Protestants typically agree on, but not, say, Mormonism?
> OK, but I still don't know what you mean by "mainstream Islam".
It means the characteristics largely in common between Islam as typically believed in major Islam-majority nations such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iraq, etc. Yes, I am aware that there are also things they disagree on.
(The usage would exclude, for example, the Ahmedis, who are a small fraction of total Muslims.)
Would you be as puzzled by the usage "mainstream Christianity", to mean things that most Catholics and Protestants typically agree on, but not, say, Mormonism?
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Because of the divisive and destructive effects of making the whole of Islam the target rather than the subgroups that cause the harm. We live in a society that has a significant contingent of moderate Muslims who work alongside us in our professions, whose kids attend schools with our kids, who are equal members of our communities, who we value as friends. So, if we talk about their religion in terms that characterise it by what might be closer, globally, to the "average" interpretation of Islam - a far more harmful, oppressive version than that which we encounter here, every day - then we're alienating those people and dividing our communities. Why would we want to do that?
> Why is it that it's only when the topic is Islam do people try to disallow criticism by this method?
Because of the divisive and destructive effects of making the whole of Islam the target rather than the subgroups that cause the harm. We live in a society that has a significant contingent of moderate Muslims who work alongside us in our professions, whose kids attend schools with our kids, who are equal members of our communities, who we value as friends. So, if we talk about their religion in terms that characterise it by what might be closer, globally, to the "average" interpretation of Islam - a far more harmful, oppressive version than that which we encounter here, every day - then we're alienating those people and dividing our communities. Why would we want to do that?
4
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Do you mean left-leaning contributors on this thread, Hugh? Or are you illustrating a more general phenomenon at large?
In either case, please provide some evidence.
> The "left" seem to think that it's OK that under Sharia Law certain things are acceptable because it's their cultural beliefs.
Do you mean left-leaning contributors on this thread, Hugh? Or are you illustrating a more general phenomenon at large?
In either case, please provide some evidence.
Post edited at 19:32
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
But it is mainstream Islamic ideology that causes harm! That doesn't prevent most Muslims from being moderates (most religious believers are far better than their religion, being luke-warm about their religion and only picking the best bits). But the fact that most Muslims are peaceful and just want to get on with their lives does not stop their *mainstream* Islam being harmful.
It is that mainstream Islam that has totalitarian and aggressive aspects, and it is mainstream Islam that radicalises a fraction of Muslims, and will go on radicalising some fraction of Muslims until mainstream Islam is reformed to be more tolerant and pluralistic.
As Ayaan Hisi Ali points out, the extremists have a ready recruiting method. All they need to do is go among moderates and say: Well, do you actually believe this? Read it, see what it says. You say you do believe it, but do you?
> Because of the divisive and destructive effects of making the whole of Islam the target rather than the subgroups that cause the harm.
But it is mainstream Islamic ideology that causes harm! That doesn't prevent most Muslims from being moderates (most religious believers are far better than their religion, being luke-warm about their religion and only picking the best bits). But the fact that most Muslims are peaceful and just want to get on with their lives does not stop their *mainstream* Islam being harmful.
It is that mainstream Islam that has totalitarian and aggressive aspects, and it is mainstream Islam that radicalises a fraction of Muslims, and will go on radicalising some fraction of Muslims until mainstream Islam is reformed to be more tolerant and pluralistic.
As Ayaan Hisi Ali points out, the extremists have a ready recruiting method. All they need to do is go among moderates and say: Well, do you actually believe this? Read it, see what it says. You say you do believe it, but do you?
4
1
In reply to Hugh J:
I take it from your critical response that you consider me as one of the 'lefties'. It's probably a fair descriptor in itself. But it's a deeply insulting leap of faith to imply that while taking issue with fascist oppression, I somehow condone or disregard Islamist oppression.
You know nothing of me, my background and experiences, and my views beyond the fact I dislike racism. So far, FesteringSore is the only one who's actually taken the time to ask what my opinions are on this issue.
To be clear with you, and the others on the thread who equate dislike of racism with apologism for Islamist atrocities:
I can do very little about Islamist death cults. There is currently no legal framework which would allow me to pursue a just course of action against these evil people. I can however do something about the insidious creep of racism in my society, which is to call it for what it is.
The number of dislikes and negative, presumptuous replies my posts are getting illustrates the cultural change afoot - I'm not saying anything particularly contentious or combative; it's those on the right who are getting ridiculously defensive.
> So, come on "lefties", how about venting your spleen at these guys? Or are you feminist getting your bhurkas ready and have you guy's ordered your knee pads from Amazon yet?
I take it from your critical response that you consider me as one of the 'lefties'. It's probably a fair descriptor in itself. But it's a deeply insulting leap of faith to imply that while taking issue with fascist oppression, I somehow condone or disregard Islamist oppression.
You know nothing of me, my background and experiences, and my views beyond the fact I dislike racism. So far, FesteringSore is the only one who's actually taken the time to ask what my opinions are on this issue.
To be clear with you, and the others on the thread who equate dislike of racism with apologism for Islamist atrocities:
I can do very little about Islamist death cults. There is currently no legal framework which would allow me to pursue a just course of action against these evil people. I can however do something about the insidious creep of racism in my society, which is to call it for what it is.
The number of dislikes and negative, presumptuous replies my posts are getting illustrates the cultural change afoot - I'm not saying anything particularly contentious or combative; it's those on the right who are getting ridiculously defensive.
Post edited at 19:46
2
4
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Sorry, but you have no idea what the "mainstream" is.
The mainstream is the vast majority of the population that have little or no concept of their own philosophy. I know, I work with them and they don't talk about stuff like this on forums. Most are fed up with their shitty lives not getting any better as they were promised it would be as children. Most of them are still emotionally children! The mainstream voted for Trump and Brexit, just as they voted for Blair and Obama, because they were convinced by their arguments/lies over those of their opponents. Maybe with Brexit you could blame media influence, but you sure as hell can't do that with Trump.
Now, the "left" is up in arms because it has been found out to be bullshitting too.
Trump won because he successfully sold the lie to the poor white working class of America that he was going to take things back to the good old days. But, the only thing that has changed is that he's not bullshitting when it comes to his appointments. Oh look, a Wall Streeter in charge of financial policy, oh look, an oil executive in charge of foreign policy, oh look, the army in charge of defense policy. As if that wasn't exactly the case beforehand!
> Fringe groups. Such as President-elect Trump. Mr Farage. Ms LePen. This is my point, and it's deeply obvious: the fringe *IS BECOMING* the mainstream.
Sorry, but you have no idea what the "mainstream" is.
The mainstream is the vast majority of the population that have little or no concept of their own philosophy. I know, I work with them and they don't talk about stuff like this on forums. Most are fed up with their shitty lives not getting any better as they were promised it would be as children. Most of them are still emotionally children! The mainstream voted for Trump and Brexit, just as they voted for Blair and Obama, because they were convinced by their arguments/lies over those of their opponents. Maybe with Brexit you could blame media influence, but you sure as hell can't do that with Trump.
Now, the "left" is up in arms because it has been found out to be bullshitting too.
Trump won because he successfully sold the lie to the poor white working class of America that he was going to take things back to the good old days. But, the only thing that has changed is that he's not bullshitting when it comes to his appointments. Oh look, a Wall Streeter in charge of financial policy, oh look, an oil executive in charge of foreign policy, oh look, the army in charge of defense policy. As if that wasn't exactly the case beforehand!
5
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Who?
Who says it's OK?
This is the point. If you accept as perfectly legitimate and not at all racist the world-view of the author of the article - that Muslims are a threat to our society, and are trying to "outbreed us", then how on earth are you going to open dialogue with a moderate Muslim? If you fail to call out that overt racism (and it *is* racism when you talk about "outbreeding") then you've fallen at the first hurdle. They're not going to trust you, because you've accepted the viewpoint that Muslims are the enemy.
> The "left" seem to think that it's OK that under Sharia Law certain things are acceptable because it's their cultural beliefs.
Who?
> But it's OK to turn a blind eye to that happening in the Islamic world as that's their culture and it would racist to speak out against it.
Who says it's OK?
> The best we can hope for is moderating Islamic zealotry and I can see only one way of doing this. That is to influence the more moderate elements of faith by communication and truly open dialogue, in the hope that they can change their faith from within to be more acceptable to the values of the countries within they would like to live and worship their God.
This is the point. If you accept as perfectly legitimate and not at all racist the world-view of the author of the article - that Muslims are a threat to our society, and are trying to "outbreed us", then how on earth are you going to open dialogue with a moderate Muslim? If you fail to call out that overt racism (and it *is* racism when you talk about "outbreeding") then you've fallen at the first hurdle. They're not going to trust you, because you've accepted the viewpoint that Muslims are the enemy.
2
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
And if you don't call out the extremist ideologues trying to subvert our society they will just laugh at you!
There are brave people like Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sarah Haider doing exactly this.
> If you fail to call out that overt racism (and it *is* racism when you talk about "outbreeding") then you've fallen at the first hurdle. They're not going to trust you, because you've accepted the viewpoint that Muslims are the enemy.
And if you don't call out the extremist ideologues trying to subvert our society they will just laugh at you!
There are brave people like Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sarah Haider doing exactly this.
Post edited at 20:05
4
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Don't patronise me. I'm perfectly clear as to the definition of 'mainstream' thanks, whereas your definition comes across as pretty loopy, not to mention a bit arrogant and vicious:
Even more oddly, you come to agree with my main point (that the fringe is becoming the mainstream) with this:
So you're just arguing semantics really, a lot like other so-called 'contributors', this time over what constitutes a definition for the word 'mainstream'. FFS. Can we please discuss the issue without going around in circles?
Don't patronise me. I'm perfectly clear as to the definition of 'mainstream' thanks, whereas your definition comes across as pretty loopy, not to mention a bit arrogant and vicious:
> Most are fed up with their shitty lives not getting any better as they were promised it would be as children. Most of them are still emotionally children!
Even more oddly, you come to agree with my main point (that the fringe is becoming the mainstream) with this:
> The mainstream voted for Trump and Brexit, just as they voted for Blair and Obama
So you're just arguing semantics really, a lot like other so-called 'contributors', this time over what constitutes a definition for the word 'mainstream'. FFS. Can we please discuss the issue without going around in circles?
1
6
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Well, for example, when Maryam Namazie gave a talk at Goldsmiths, criticising Sharia law and the treatment of women by Islam, she was shouted down and disrupted by Islamists.
Various student groups, including the Feminist Society (!?) and the LGBT society (!!??) then sided with the *Islamists* (??), and criticised Namazie for criticising Sharia law!!
That show the intellectual bankruptcy of *some* elements of "the left" (only some, others such as Nick Cohen have their radar straight).
https://www.gspellchecker.com/2015/12/now-goldsmiths-lgbt-society-stands-wi...
> Who says it's OK?
Well, for example, when Maryam Namazie gave a talk at Goldsmiths, criticising Sharia law and the treatment of women by Islam, she was shouted down and disrupted by Islamists.
Various student groups, including the Feminist Society (!?) and the LGBT society (!!??) then sided with the *Islamists* (??), and criticised Namazie for criticising Sharia law!!
That show the intellectual bankruptcy of *some* elements of "the left" (only some, others such as Nick Cohen have their radar straight).
https://www.gspellchecker.com/2015/12/now-goldsmiths-lgbt-society-stands-wi...
5
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
For god's sake, how many times? Student unions do not represent "the left" any more than the BNP represent "the right". Can we please have discussion without decent to this?
For god's sake, how many times? Student unions do not represent "the left" any more than the BNP represent "the right". Can we please have discussion without decent to this?
3
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
In that case, how about picking out parts of my original post that you didn't perceive as directly offensive (which they weren't)?
Or are you just content with cherry picking to prove your peity?
> FFS. Can we please discuss the issue without going around in circles?
In that case, how about picking out parts of my original post that you didn't perceive as directly offensive (which they weren't)?
Or are you just content with cherry picking to prove your peity?
3
1
3
1
In reply to Hugh J:
If you want engagement in a civilised fashion, you could begin by:
- not making condescending statements such as the one directly above
- not leaping to conclusions about people's opinions and thoughts without bothering to ask, thus implying they are 'bigots via low expectations' (as the OP I'm fairly sure I'm included in your indictment of 'the left')
Frankly you come across as a pretty unpleasant person. I've directly repudiated your unfounded assertion that I'm apologising for Islamist atrocities, and you've failed to respond to that, possibly because it doesn't fit your preconceptions.
I find myself reluctant to engage with you on the points you make because of this - I suspect I won't get fruitful dialogue, just a constant search on your part for minor mistakes in my choice of idiom. Sorry - I'd like to be proven wrong.
Once we get beyond the daft semantics about whether the article in the OP is racism or not (it's definitely discriminatory; you could refer to SenzuBean's excellent reply explaining how use of the term racism pertains here); what constitutes the mainstream; and your tendency to patronise, I am in agreement with you on many points. For example:
and your final point is eloquent and persuasive, one with which I firmly agree:
I believe that extremists on both 'sides' have far more in common with each other than with their respective countryfolk. They each seek to leverage fear for their own ends, in fact they are each essential for the other's existence.
> In that case, how about picking out parts of my original post that you didn't perceive as directly offensive (which they weren't)?
> Or are you just content with cherry picking to prove your peity?
If you want engagement in a civilised fashion, you could begin by:
- not making condescending statements such as the one directly above
- not leaping to conclusions about people's opinions and thoughts without bothering to ask, thus implying they are 'bigots via low expectations' (as the OP I'm fairly sure I'm included in your indictment of 'the left')
Frankly you come across as a pretty unpleasant person. I've directly repudiated your unfounded assertion that I'm apologising for Islamist atrocities, and you've failed to respond to that, possibly because it doesn't fit your preconceptions.
I find myself reluctant to engage with you on the points you make because of this - I suspect I won't get fruitful dialogue, just a constant search on your part for minor mistakes in my choice of idiom. Sorry - I'd like to be proven wrong.
Once we get beyond the daft semantics about whether the article in the OP is racism or not (it's definitely discriminatory; you could refer to SenzuBean's excellent reply explaining how use of the term racism pertains here); what constitutes the mainstream; and your tendency to patronise, I am in agreement with you on many points. For example:
> no religion should hold sway on the rights of others, especially if they do not believe in it.
and your final point is eloquent and persuasive, one with which I firmly agree:
> It will be over my dead body that the Western World returns to the religious zealotry that took us hundreds of years to banish from our society or indeed a racist ideology that cost the lives of 60 million only 70 years ago. Funny how the words Jihad and Kampf have the same meaning, isn't it?
I believe that extremists on both 'sides' have far more in common with each other than with their respective countryfolk. They each seek to leverage fear for their own ends, in fact they are each essential for the other's existence.
Post edited at 20:40
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
During 2016, there were 2410 Islamic attacks in 59 countries, in which 20914 people were killed and 26247 injured.
But sod them, let's worry more about people being offended by articles in newspapers eh?
During 2016, there were 2410 Islamic attacks in 59 countries, in which 20914 people were killed and 26247 injured.
But sod them, let's worry more about people being offended by articles in newspapers eh?
3
3
In reply to Big Ger:
What's your point? Far more people have died (both directly and indirectly, from famine and lack of healthcare) at the hand of Western 'intervention', than from the retaliation by extremists. If we're to be worried about some global mass of killers it should be us.
> During 2016, there were 2410 Islamic attacks in 59 countries, in which 20914 people were killed and 26247 injured.
> But sod them, let's worry more about people being offended by articles in newspapers eh?
What's your point? Far more people have died (both directly and indirectly, from famine and lack of healthcare) at the hand of Western 'intervention', than from the retaliation by extremists. If we're to be worried about some global mass of killers it should be us.
3
2
In reply to Big Ger:
See my earlier reply to Hugh J on which I engage with this. He hasn't responded, neither have the likes of Coel or Bootrock:
> During 2016, there were 2410 Islamic attacks in 59 countries, in which 20914 people were killed and 26247 injured.
> But sod them, let's worry more about people being offended by articles in newspapers eh?
See my earlier reply to Hugh J on which I engage with this. He hasn't responded, neither have the likes of Coel or Bootrock:
> I can do very little about Islamist death cults. There is currently no legal framework which would allow me to pursue a just course of action against these evil people. I can however do something about the insidious creep of racism in my society, which is to call it for what it is.
Post edited at 21:28
1
2
In reply to TobyA:
Now then... just leave Morris Dancing alone. It's just dancing. Most Morris dancers are seriously left of centre. Dancing, making your own entertainment, is one of the most subversive things you can do in these bleak times. It will certainly be banned when there's a massive picture of Trump's face looking at us from the screen in Piccadilly Circus.
> Bootrock Bingo!!!! What's the prize? A months subscription to Breitbart Europe Extra?
> Personally, I'm just gunning for Morris dancing as it just looks so silly. I apologise if you have bells on your knees right now in an attempt to help keep up European culture and traditions, but come on, dude - the hanky waving!? Seriously?
Now then... just leave Morris Dancing alone. It's just dancing. Most Morris dancers are seriously left of centre. Dancing, making your own entertainment, is one of the most subversive things you can do in these bleak times. It will certainly be banned when there's a massive picture of Trump's face looking at us from the screen in Piccadilly Circus.
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Nice website you get your propaganda from... Will you be quoting Britain First next?
Here is loonwatch's take on those figures http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/thereligionofpeace-com-working-to-streamli...
Nice website you get your propaganda from... Will you be quoting Britain First next?
Here is loonwatch's take on those figures http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/thereligionofpeace-com-working-to-streamli...
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
You don't seem to get it. Everyone, whether they're on the left (regressive or otherwise) or right, whether they think there should be a "complete shut-down on Muslims entering Europe" (as Trump would say) or whether they think we have a duty to take in refugees from the Middle East, condemns the actions of Islamist terrorists. We're not discussing whether we think Islamic terrorism is OK, or whether we have sympathy for those whose lives are destroyed by it.
What we're talking about is whether the response should include inciting hatred against Muslims in general, which appears to be precisely the response Steyn is promoting in the article. I think that's a bad idea, it's both morally repugnant and pragmatically counterproductive. Some people might think it's how we should respond. It's a valid debate, and it's not to do with "offence" - it's to do with how we view the world and what we want leaders to do.
> During 2016, there were 2410 Islamic attacks in 59 countries, in which 20914 people were killed and 26247 injured.
> But sod them, let's worry more about people being offended by articles in newspapers eh?
You don't seem to get it. Everyone, whether they're on the left (regressive or otherwise) or right, whether they think there should be a "complete shut-down on Muslims entering Europe" (as Trump would say) or whether they think we have a duty to take in refugees from the Middle East, condemns the actions of Islamist terrorists. We're not discussing whether we think Islamic terrorism is OK, or whether we have sympathy for those whose lives are destroyed by it.
What we're talking about is whether the response should include inciting hatred against Muslims in general, which appears to be precisely the response Steyn is promoting in the article. I think that's a bad idea, it's both morally repugnant and pragmatically counterproductive. Some people might think it's how we should respond. It's a valid debate, and it's not to do with "offence" - it's to do with how we view the world and what we want leaders to do.
5
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
Well, you can count yourself amongst those if you like. Personally, I marched the streets of London in February 2003 with well over a million others to protest my absolute belief that what our government was about to do was not only illegal, but also immoral. But I don't see these extremist going for the "head of the serpent". Instead they terrorize the innocent and those, who through their own bigotry, see as culpable simply because they are westerners. And let's not forget that the people they terrorise more than anyone are other innocent Muslims.
> What's your point? Far more people have died (both directly and indirectly, from famine and lack of healthcare) at the hand of Western 'intervention', than from the retaliation by extremists. If we're to be worried about some global mass of killers it should be us.
Well, you can count yourself amongst those if you like. Personally, I marched the streets of London in February 2003 with well over a million others to protest my absolute belief that what our government was about to do was not only illegal, but also immoral. But I don't see these extremist going for the "head of the serpent". Instead they terrorize the innocent and those, who through their own bigotry, see as culpable simply because they are westerners. And let's not forget that the people they terrorise more than anyone are other innocent Muslims.
Post edited at 22:21
5
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
If you think Hugh is being condescending and unpleasant then I think you have 1) proved Bootrock's odious point and 2) need to go to your safe place and hug Mr Pookie.
If you think Hugh is being condescending and unpleasant then I think you have 1) proved Bootrock's odious point and 2) need to go to your safe place and hug Mr Pookie.
4
2
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Is there a way of pointing out that some fraction of those coming out of places like Syria will be extremists, and thus questioning whether mass immigration is a good thing, that would not be said to amount to "inciting hatred against Muslims in general"?
> What we're talking about is whether the response should include inciting hatred against Muslims in general, which appears to be precisely the response Steyn is promoting in the article.
Is there a way of pointing out that some fraction of those coming out of places like Syria will be extremists, and thus questioning whether mass immigration is a good thing, that would not be said to amount to "inciting hatred against Muslims in general"?
5
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I get it, on the day after 12 people are murdered by being driven over by a truck, "Murderous Crow" scours Australian newspapers to find things to be offended on the behalf of other people by, then brings it here to show what a good little SJW he is.
> You don't seem to get it.
I get it, on the day after 12 people are murdered by being driven over by a truck, "Murderous Crow" scours Australian newspapers to find things to be offended on the behalf of other people by, then brings it here to show what a good little SJW he is.
5
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Ah well, seeing you have countered them with such devastatingly accurate figures and statistics from such reputable sites, I have to concede that you .....show nothing at all....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
> Nice website you get your propaganda from... Will you be quoting Britain First next?
Ah well, seeing you have countered them with such devastatingly accurate figures and statistics from such reputable sites, I have to concede that you .....show nothing at all....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
2
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Isn't that like pointing out that some fraction of Irish will be paedophiles, and thus questioning whether open borders with Ireland and direct ferries are a good thing?
Isn't that like pointing out that some fraction of Irish will be paedophiles, and thus questioning whether open borders with Ireland and direct ferries are a good thing?
1
5
In reply to SenzuBean:
So those facts which you present and show such blinding statistics and links for, (whoops, no you just pulled excuses out of your nether reasons, didn't you, ) justify running people over with trucks do they?
> What's your point? Far more people have died (both directly and indirectly, from famine and lack of healthcare) at the hand of Western 'intervention',
So those facts which you present and show such blinding statistics and links for, (whoops, no you just pulled excuses out of your nether reasons, didn't you, ) justify running people over with trucks do they?
3
2
4
In reply to Big Ger:
Mate your unpleasantness borders on psychotic in my humble opinion. I hope I never meet you.
Fucking ridiculous internet keyboard warrior, chucking out insults from the safety of anonymity.
Mate your unpleasantness borders on psychotic in my humble opinion. I hope I never meet you.
Fucking ridiculous internet keyboard warrior, chucking out insults from the safety of anonymity.
Post edited at 22:43
5
In reply to Mr Lopez:
No, that would not be at all the same. Not unless you had some evidence that the fraction of Irish who are paedophiles was greater than the fraction of those already in the UK.
> Isn't that like pointing out that some fraction of Irish will be paedophiles, and thus questioning whether open borders with Ireland and direct ferries are a good thing?
No, that would not be at all the same. Not unless you had some evidence that the fraction of Irish who are paedophiles was greater than the fraction of those already in the UK.
3
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Good on you (I was just starting high school)
They are using neo-guerilla tactics, which doesn't allow them access to our high echelons. If they could - perhaps they would? We can't know.
I agree they have chosen a dark path - to deliberately attack the innocent to incite fear and invite retaliation to boost their ranks and their claim to cause. We've also chosen a dark path - to undermine and attack other nations (despite whatever innocents happen to be in the way) for material and strategic gain. I think both are despicable to be honest. Whether one is slightly better than another is neither here nor there in my opinion - and until this is acknowledged I don't see how we can hope to resolve anything (it will be a prisoner's dilemma - both sides pointing out the heinous acts of the other is doing as justification for their own heinous acts).
> Well, you can count yourself amongst those if you like. Personally, I marched the streets of London in February 2003 with well over a million others to protest my absolute belief that what our government was about to do was not only illegal, but also immoral.
Good on you (I was just starting high school)
> But I don't see these extremist going for the "head of the serpent".
They are using neo-guerilla tactics, which doesn't allow them access to our high echelons. If they could - perhaps they would? We can't know.
> Instead they terrorize the innocent and those, who through their own bigotry, see as culpable simply because they are westerners. And let's not forget that the people they terrorise more than anyone are other innocent Muslims.
I agree they have chosen a dark path - to deliberately attack the innocent to incite fear and invite retaliation to boost their ranks and their claim to cause. We've also chosen a dark path - to undermine and attack other nations (despite whatever innocents happen to be in the way) for material and strategic gain. I think both are despicable to be honest. Whether one is slightly better than another is neither here nor there in my opinion - and until this is acknowledged I don't see how we can hope to resolve anything (it will be a prisoner's dilemma - both sides pointing out the heinous acts of the other is doing as justification for their own heinous acts).
2
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
LOL!! The irony of that escapes you I suppose?
BTW what insult to you did you perceive?
> Mate your unpleasantness borders on psychotic in my humble opinion. I hope I never meet you.
> F*cking ridiculous internet keyboard warrior, chucking out insults from the safety of anonymity.
LOL!! The irony of that escapes you I suppose?
BTW what insult to you did you perceive?
9
2
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35629034
In reply to Big Ger:
Could you source that? Does that include deaths in territory controlled by Islamic state?
It seems remarkably low, in some respects. Each one is a life destroyed, and family left grieving; and each one is one too many.
But; policy and government response to threats has to be made taking the scale of the threat into account. And that means that the global death toll from Islamic terror is less than half the deaths annually due to air pollution in the UK alone- see link.
Much of this is due to diesel emissions, because car manufacturers cheated om tests. As a direct result, thousands are dead.
We are very poor at assessing scale of threats and at attributing responsibility. Your figures suggest I have a 3 per million chance of being killed in an Islamic terror attack. That doesn't seem to justify the response that such events generate.
We are colluding with the terrorists to ensure the effect that they have on our society is magnified beyond any objective assessment of the risk they pose.
In reply to Big Ger:
Could you source that? Does that include deaths in territory controlled by Islamic state?
It seems remarkably low, in some respects. Each one is a life destroyed, and family left grieving; and each one is one too many.
But; policy and government response to threats has to be made taking the scale of the threat into account. And that means that the global death toll from Islamic terror is less than half the deaths annually due to air pollution in the UK alone- see link.
Much of this is due to diesel emissions, because car manufacturers cheated om tests. As a direct result, thousands are dead.
We are very poor at assessing scale of threats and at attributing responsibility. Your figures suggest I have a 3 per million chance of being killed in an Islamic terror attack. That doesn't seem to justify the response that such events generate.
We are colluding with the terrorists to ensure the effect that they have on our society is magnified beyond any objective assessment of the risk they pose.
1
1
In reply to Bootrock:
Ffs get your terminology sorted. The left is progressive, and if you want to place some blame, its the neoliberals that 'brought this on us' and they are not left wing - far from it.
Ffs get your terminology sorted. The left is progressive, and if you want to place some blame, its the neoliberals that 'brought this on us' and they are not left wing - far from it.
2
4
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Yep, I would, considering that Catholics and Protestants have wildly differing views on matters both theological and social amongst themselves let alone between those groups. It might just about make sense to say with the UK "mainstream Christianity" but look at the Anglican church tearing itself apart over gay priests or women bishops, to a Anglican in Nigeria their sense of "mainstream" would be entirely different.
> Would you be as puzzled by the usage "mainstream Christianity", to mean things that most Catholics and Protestants typically agree on, but not, say, Mormonism?
Yep, I would, considering that Catholics and Protestants have wildly differing views on matters both theological and social amongst themselves let alone between those groups. It might just about make sense to say with the UK "mainstream Christianity" but look at the Anglican church tearing itself apart over gay priests or women bishops, to a Anglican in Nigeria their sense of "mainstream" would be entirely different.
2
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
There might be, but Steyn certainly hasn't managed it.
I think the "some of them are terrorists" argument against immigration is basically bogus. You can't predict who's going to become radicalised, they might be a British/German etc national, they might be someone who came into the country years ago, or they might be a Syrian refugee. The case for excluding all Syrian refugees because "some of them are terrorists" is non-existent. You'll still get terrorist attacks.
It's very unclear what's meant by "mass immigration". Here, there are tight restrictions on non-EU nationals, and whole debate is around Brexit and not related to terrorism at all. In Germany, it's the Merkel policy on asylum that's the issue, a completely different thing, and you refer to "mass immigration" as if that's a policy - it isn't. You might describe what has happened here over the last 50 years or more as "mass immigration" - is that what you mean?
> Is there a way of pointing out that some fraction of those coming out of places like Syria will be extremists, and thus questioning whether mass immigration is a good thing, that would not be said to amount to "inciting hatred against Muslims in general"?
There might be, but Steyn certainly hasn't managed it.
I think the "some of them are terrorists" argument against immigration is basically bogus. You can't predict who's going to become radicalised, they might be a British/German etc national, they might be someone who came into the country years ago, or they might be a Syrian refugee. The case for excluding all Syrian refugees because "some of them are terrorists" is non-existent. You'll still get terrorist attacks.
It's very unclear what's meant by "mass immigration". Here, there are tight restrictions on non-EU nationals, and whole debate is around Brexit and not related to terrorism at all. In Germany, it's the Merkel policy on asylum that's the issue, a completely different thing, and you refer to "mass immigration" as if that's a policy - it isn't. You might describe what has happened here over the last 50 years or more as "mass immigration" - is that what you mean?
1
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Have you got any evience that the fraction of refugees who are extremists is greater than the fraction of those already in the UK?
Have you got any evience that the fraction of refugees who are extremists is greater than the fraction of those already in the UK?
3
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Want to respond to the point made? There's no irony here. It's my picture in my profile. I use my real name in this thread. You hide behind your keyboard and chat sh!t.
Want to respond to the point made? There's no irony here. It's my picture in my profile. I use my real name in this thread. You hide behind your keyboard and chat sh!t.
Post edited at 22:48
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
I count 42 Islamist Terrorist attacks for 2016, which is a little short from the 2410 you stated in your previous post.
> Ah well, seeing you have countered them with such devastatingly accurate figures and statistics from such reputable sites, I have to concede that you .....show nothing at all....
I count 42 Islamist Terrorist attacks for 2016, which is a little short from the 2410 you stated in your previous post.
1
1
In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Why thank you Nevis. I do seem to have touched a soar point, I did mention that it would.
Murderous_Crow,
I think you may be a bit upset because I quoted you directly as part of the SJW criticism in my original post. It was only used as a perfect example to illustrate a point. Nowhere have I directly called your good self a Muslim apologist, or anyone else for that matter. Sorry if I came across as condescending and unpleasant in my following rebuttals. As you can probably tell, I am considerably passionate about these issues. I think these are issues (along with environmental concerns) that are threatening the very existence of our species, let alone society. We have Russia involved in Syria, USA involved everywhere, who knows what China are up to in the Pacific region, as well as a self-proclaimed god in that region trying to develop nukes? We now have a petulant narcissist in the White House. Let's also not forget that there is a nuclear power in the Middle East region that feels threatened all the time. As for ourselves, well we need to defend OUR values, it all we can do, but we need to do that before defending those of others or else we won't be able to defend any values at all. I think there is little point in treading on eggshells when are some who are throwing grenades.
Why thank you Nevis. I do seem to have touched a soar point, I did mention that it would.
Murderous_Crow,
I think you may be a bit upset because I quoted you directly as part of the SJW criticism in my original post. It was only used as a perfect example to illustrate a point. Nowhere have I directly called your good self a Muslim apologist, or anyone else for that matter. Sorry if I came across as condescending and unpleasant in my following rebuttals. As you can probably tell, I am considerably passionate about these issues. I think these are issues (along with environmental concerns) that are threatening the very existence of our species, let alone society. We have Russia involved in Syria, USA involved everywhere, who knows what China are up to in the Pacific region, as well as a self-proclaimed god in that region trying to develop nukes? We now have a petulant narcissist in the White House. Let's also not forget that there is a nuclear power in the Middle East region that feels threatened all the time. As for ourselves, well we need to defend OUR values, it all we can do, but we need to do that before defending those of others or else we won't be able to defend any values at all. I think there is little point in treading on eggshells when are some who are throwing grenades.
5
In reply to Coel Hellier:
This is the agent-structure problem though isn't it? If as you say most Muslims are being moderate, how can "mainstream Islam" be extremist? Where and how does this mainstream Islam exist if it is not in the beliefs and actions of the majority of practicing Muslims?
> But it is mainstream Islamic ideology that causes harm! That doesn't prevent most Muslims from being moderates (most religious believers are far better than their religion, being luke-warm about their religion and only picking the best bits). But the fact that most Muslims are peaceful and just want to get on with their lives does not stop their *mainstream* Islam being harmful.
This is the agent-structure problem though isn't it? If as you say most Muslims are being moderate, how can "mainstream Islam" be extremist? Where and how does this mainstream Islam exist if it is not in the beliefs and actions of the majority of practicing Muslims?
1
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
What point made? That you scour Australian newspapers to find things to be offended on behalf of other people by, then bring them here the day after 12 people are murdered at a German market, as some sort of "look over there, how can we let this sort of atrocity continue" virtue signalling?
I think I addressed that.
> Want to respond to the point made? There's no irony here. It's my picture in my profile. I use my real name in this thread. You hide behind your keyboard and chat sh!t.
What point made? That you scour Australian newspapers to find things to be offended on behalf of other people by, then bring them here the day after 12 people are murdered at a German market, as some sort of "look over there, how can we let this sort of atrocity continue" virtue signalling?
I think I addressed that.
Post edited at 22:53
6
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Yes. Look at the fraction of terrorist acts in Europe in the last few years committed by immigrants or children of immigrants. Also look at the estimated 1000 people from Britain who have gone to Syria to join Islamic State; by far the greatest number are first- or second-generation immigrants.
> Have you got any evidence that the fraction of refugees who are extremists is greater than the fraction of those already in the UK?
Yes. Look at the fraction of terrorist acts in Europe in the last few years committed by immigrants or children of immigrants. Also look at the estimated 1000 people from Britain who have gone to Syria to join Islamic State; by far the greatest number are first- or second-generation immigrants.
3
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Oh well, we can ignore them then, as long as nasty men express views in Australian papers which some find uncomfortable reading.
> I count 42 Islamist Terrorist attacks for 2016, which is a little short from the 2410 you stated in your previous post.
Oh well, we can ignore them then, as long as nasty men express views in Australian papers which some find uncomfortable reading.
5
1
In reply to Jack:
Apologies if your being sarcastic but, I think you'll find that there is an element of the left that is now labelled "The Regressive Left".
> Ffs get your terminology sorted. The left is progressive, and if you want to place some blame, its the neoliberals that 'brought this on us' and they are not left wing - far from it.
Apologies if your being sarcastic but, I think you'll find that there is an element of the left that is now labelled "The Regressive Left".
1
1
2
In reply to TobyA:
Through many people cherry-picking their religion or believing it in a luke-warm way.
As a comparison, Catholic teaching on things like birth control is pretty weird and extreme (in the opinion of most people), and yet most Catholics are more moderate, they simply disregard those teachings.
> If as you say most Muslims are being moderate, how can "mainstream Islam" be extremist?
Through many people cherry-picking their religion or believing it in a luke-warm way.
As a comparison, Catholic teaching on things like birth control is pretty weird and extreme (in the opinion of most people), and yet most Catholics are more moderate, they simply disregard those teachings.
1
1
In reply to Hugh J:
...and the only examples that anyone can come up with of this element are in student unions!
> Apologies if your being sarcastic but, I think you'll find that there is an element of the left that is now labelled "The Regressive Left".
...and the only examples that anyone can come up with of this element are in student unions!
2
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Wow, that must keep you very busy! I'm surprised you have time to deign us with your presence on these funny little forums!
It seems that you work with the majority of the population in the UK AND the US, which makes it even more impressive.
> The mainstream is the vast majority of the population that have little or no concept of their own philosophy. I know, I work with them
Wow, that must keep you very busy! I'm surprised you have time to deign us with your presence on these funny little forums!
It seems that you work with the majority of the population in the UK AND the US, which makes it even more impressive.
1
2
In reply to Hugh J:
No. Paddy, you and Nevis need to rethink exactly what I'm offended by. The main content and direction of your posts is well considered, articulate and thoughtful. Let me explain:
- I took exception to the implication that I'm a SJW - thank you for your clarification on that, and you admit that it's clear how I arrived at this conclusion.
- I dislike the implication that my viewpoint is synonymous with apologism for Islamist atrocities - if you knew me, my background and experiences you'd understand that I'm perhaps better qualified to speak on this than you currently think. Again, thanks for the clarification.
- I found your assertion 'Sorry, but you have no idea what the "mainstream" is' condescending and patronising. But as I explain above, we're pretty much in agreement after this.
Like this a lot. I'm passionate about these issues too. Edited to add - I fully agree re: eggshells and grenades, which is why I'm prepared to say what I see despite the outrage of *some* third-rate right-wing trolls who it seems purposely go out of their way to be offended by my views.
Luke
> Why thank you Nevis. I do seem to have touched a soar point, I did mention that it would.
No. Paddy, you and Nevis need to rethink exactly what I'm offended by. The main content and direction of your posts is well considered, articulate and thoughtful. Let me explain:
- I took exception to the implication that I'm a SJW - thank you for your clarification on that, and you admit that it's clear how I arrived at this conclusion.
- I dislike the implication that my viewpoint is synonymous with apologism for Islamist atrocities - if you knew me, my background and experiences you'd understand that I'm perhaps better qualified to speak on this than you currently think. Again, thanks for the clarification.
- I found your assertion 'Sorry, but you have no idea what the "mainstream" is' condescending and patronising. But as I explain above, we're pretty much in agreement after this.
> I think you may be a bit upset because I quoted you directly as part of the SJW criticism in my original post. It was only used as a perfect example to illustrate a point. Nowhere have I directly called your good self a Muslim apologist, or anyone else for that matter. Sorry if I came across as condescending and unpleasant in my following rebuttals. As you can probably tell, I am considerably passionate about these issues. I think these are issues (along with environmental concerns) that are threatening the very existence of our species, let alone society. We have Russia involved in Syria, USA involved everywhere, who knows what China are up to in the Pacific region, as well as a self-proclaimed god in that region trying to develop nukes? We now have a petulant narcissist in the White House. Let's also not forget that there is a nuclear power in the Middle East region that feels threatened all the time. As for ourselves, well we need to defend OUR values, it all we can do, but we need to do that before defending those of others or else we won't be able to defend any values at all. I think there is little point in treading on eggshells when are some who are throwing grenades.
Like this a lot. I'm passionate about these issues too. Edited to add - I fully agree re: eggshells and grenades, which is why I'm prepared to say what I see despite the outrage of *some* third-rate right-wing trolls who it seems purposely go out of their way to be offended by my views.
Luke
Post edited at 23:04
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
FFS, don't mention paedophiles on a thread concerning Islam, the whole religion was founded by one!
> Isn't that like pointing out that some fraction of Irish will be paedophiles, and thus questioning whether open borders with Ireland and direct ferries are a good thing?
FFS, don't mention paedophiles on a thread concerning Islam, the whole religion was founded by one!
2
2
1
1
1
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Its a pejorative term used by the right wing to discredit the progressive left. Its the right wing who are regressing society by erroding the post war consensus that resulted in a more equal society.
Its a pejorative term used by the right wing to discredit the progressive left. Its the right wing who are regressing society by erroding the post war consensus that resulted in a more equal society.
2
3
In reply to Hugh J:
Is this what you mean?
> FFS, don't mention paedophiles on a thread concerning Islam, the whole religion was founded by one!
Is this what you mean?
> The majority of traditional hadith sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six or seven, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, or ten according to Ibn Hisham, when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina.
2
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Well there is one indicator which actually correlates rather well with who might become radicalised and commit terrorist acts, and that is if they are Muslim (but not Ahmadi Muslim).
I know it's not PC to say so, but in Europe Muslims get radicalised much more often than Christians or Hindus or Sikhs or the non-religious (and yes I do know about the small "far right" groups that the media flag up at every opportunity, but so far terrorist acts by them in Europe are pretty few).
It is not a completely different thing, given free movement in Europe (and also given possibilities such as Turkey getting pissed off at the EU, and no longer holding back people from EU borders).
> You can't predict who's going to become radicalised, they might be a British/German etc national, they might be someone who came into the country years ago, or they might be a Syrian refugee.
Well there is one indicator which actually correlates rather well with who might become radicalised and commit terrorist acts, and that is if they are Muslim (but not Ahmadi Muslim).
I know it's not PC to say so, but in Europe Muslims get radicalised much more often than Christians or Hindus or Sikhs or the non-religious (and yes I do know about the small "far right" groups that the media flag up at every opportunity, but so far terrorist acts by them in Europe are pretty few).
> In Germany, it's the Merkel policy on asylum that's the issue, a completely different thing,
It is not a completely different thing, given free movement in Europe (and also given possibilities such as Turkey getting pissed off at the EU, and no longer holding back people from EU borders).
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
lmwtfy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
"Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants."
Oh? And that's just one war. There are tonnes more where that came from. That's also only direct casualties - it says nothing about indirect, those who died from malnutrition, starvation, lack to basic healthcare - those are incalculable and likely to be significantly higher.
Just because these numbers are shitty doesn't mean they came out of my ass.
> So those facts which you present and show such blinding statistics and links for, (whoops, no you just pulled excuses out of your nether reasons, didn't you, ) justify running people over with trucks do they?
lmwtfy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
"Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants."
Oh? And that's just one war. There are tonnes more where that came from. That's also only direct casualties - it says nothing about indirect, those who died from malnutrition, starvation, lack to basic healthcare - those are incalculable and likely to be significantly higher.
Just because these numbers are shitty doesn't mean they came out of my ass.
1
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You tell me. What is that fraction, and how does that compared with the fraction that is in the UK?
Tip: Read through the annual Europol TE-SAT.
> Yes. Look at the fraction of terrorist acts in Europe in the last few years committed by immigrants or children of immigrants.
You tell me. What is that fraction, and how does that compared with the fraction that is in the UK?
Tip: Read through the annual Europol TE-SAT.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
There are plenty of other examples. Most of the output of the Huffington Post for example (and some of the output of the Guardian). An egregious example was the Southern Law Poverty Center labeling Maajid Nawaz an "anti-Muslim extremist". That's the sort of thing that shows that "the left" has lost its marbles over Islamism.
> ...and the only examples that anyone can come up with of this element are in student unions!
There are plenty of other examples. Most of the output of the Huffington Post for example (and some of the output of the Guardian). An egregious example was the Southern Law Poverty Center labeling Maajid Nawaz an "anti-Muslim extremist". That's the sort of thing that shows that "the left" has lost its marbles over Islamism.
2
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
It's Turkey getting really pissed off and no longer holding back on stopping military weapons crossing the border and into the hands of thousands of already, (if badly), trained and angry young men now resident in the EU that is the worrying possibility.
> It is not a completely different thing, given free movement in Europe (and also given possibilities such as Turkey getting pissed off at the EU, and no longer holding back people from EU borders).
It's Turkey getting really pissed off and no longer holding back on stopping military weapons crossing the border and into the hands of thousands of already, (if badly), trained and angry young men now resident in the EU that is the worrying possibility.
In reply to Hugh J:
Yes. Its a term though which seems mostly in favour for the far right, wanting to shout down anything which disagrees with them, and the "centre/moderates" who are looking for something to blame for why their candidates have taken a hammering recently. It doesnt seem like they really want to deal with the fact the "centre/moderates" are actually a rather small group who did well in the recent past by hijacking left or right wing parties and relying on the original voters not jumping ship. In reality though, as already mentioned by others, it seems to be a bunch of student union types who are doing what they always did but now get press for it.
As for the politicians of tomorrow you only need to look at Jack Straw to see how much those positions change.
> Apologies if your being sarcastic but, I think you'll find that there is an element of the left that is now labelled "The Regressive Left".
Yes. Its a term though which seems mostly in favour for the far right, wanting to shout down anything which disagrees with them, and the "centre/moderates" who are looking for something to blame for why their candidates have taken a hammering recently. It doesnt seem like they really want to deal with the fact the "centre/moderates" are actually a rather small group who did well in the recent past by hijacking left or right wing parties and relying on the original voters not jumping ship. In reality though, as already mentioned by others, it seems to be a bunch of student union types who are doing what they always did but now get press for it.
As for the politicians of tomorrow you only need to look at Jack Straw to see how much those positions change.
2
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
refugees != immigrants.
Depending on your definition they may be a subset but its rather odd you confuse the two.
> Yes. Look at the fraction of terrorist acts in Europe in the last few years committed by immigrants or children of immigrants.
refugees != immigrants.
Depending on your definition they may be a subset but its rather odd you confuse the two.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
This is an excellent reply.
> You don't seem to get it. Everyone, whether they're on the left (regressive or otherwise) or right, whether they think there should be a "complete shut-down on Muslims entering Europe" (as Trump would say) or whether they think we have a duty to take in refugees from the Middle East, condemns the actions of Islamist terrorists. We're not discussing whether we think Islamic terrorism is OK, or whether we have sympathy for those whose lives are destroyed by it.
> What we're talking about is whether the response should include inciting hatred against Muslims in general, which appears to be precisely the response Steyn is promoting in the article. I think that's a bad idea, it's both morally repugnant and pragmatically counterproductive. Some people might think it's how we should respond. It's a valid debate, and it's not to do with "offence" - it's to do with how we view the world and what we want leaders to do.
This is an excellent reply.
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
I agree with you that the Iraq war is a stain on the west, I think Bliar and Chimp should be hung as war criminals.
But does the removal of Saddam, justify running people down with trucks in Germany? The German Federal Government did not send its own soldiers to Iraq after all.
> Just because these numbers are shitty doesn't mean they came out of my ass.
I agree with you that the Iraq war is a stain on the west, I think Bliar and Chimp should be hung as war criminals.
But does the removal of Saddam, justify running people down with trucks in Germany? The German Federal Government did not send its own soldiers to Iraq after all.
3
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Luke,
I am a bit confused how you came to this conclusion from my post, apart from the fact that I quoted you. Again, I did not call you or anyone an apologist or an SJW. Perhaps you felt that because others had, I was making that implication too. The subsequent "treading on eggshells" and "some throwing grenades" is my real point. Still, I'm sorry that it caused you offense.
Yeah sorry about that too, I was a bit peeved by your initial response. I was trying to point out that I think a lot of us on here, who are you must admit quite well educated, give the masses more credit than they deserve. I'm afraid the vast majority of people are not as smart as we'd like them to be. They don't really formulate their own convictions, but rely on other people to form convictions for them. Sorry if that sounds condescending, it's just the reality I perceive, but hey, perhaps I'm just as ignorant as them?
I think at the end of the day we are all more or less on the same page, even Jon and Big Ger! But we don't always realise it.
Paddy.
P.S. I seem to be apologising for everything! The SJWs have me on the run!
> - I dislike the implication that my viewpoint is synonymous with apologism for Islamist atrocities - if you knew me, my background and experiences you'd understand that I'm perhaps better qualified to speak on this than you currently think. Again, thanks for the clarification.
Luke,
I am a bit confused how you came to this conclusion from my post, apart from the fact that I quoted you. Again, I did not call you or anyone an apologist or an SJW. Perhaps you felt that because others had, I was making that implication too. The subsequent "treading on eggshells" and "some throwing grenades" is my real point. Still, I'm sorry that it caused you offense.
> I found your assertion 'Sorry, but you have no idea what the "mainstream" is' condescending and patronising. But as I explain above, we're pretty much in agreement after this.
Yeah sorry about that too, I was a bit peeved by your initial response. I was trying to point out that I think a lot of us on here, who are you must admit quite well educated, give the masses more credit than they deserve. I'm afraid the vast majority of people are not as smart as we'd like them to be. They don't really formulate their own convictions, but rely on other people to form convictions for them. Sorry if that sounds condescending, it's just the reality I perceive, but hey, perhaps I'm just as ignorant as them?
> Like this a lot. I'm passionate about these issues too.
I think at the end of the day we are all more or less on the same page, even Jon and Big Ger! But we don't always realise it.
Paddy.
P.S. I seem to be apologising for everything! The SJWs have me on the run!
3
In reply to Hugh J:
Your whole ancestry and the history of this country is one of paedophilia. It wasnt until the 16th century onwards that people stopped widely marrying children. Richard the 2nd married a 6 year old girl for example, and when he died she went on to marry her cousin. Paedophilia and incest in UK monarchy shocker.
> FFS, don't mention paedophiles on a thread concerning Islam, the whole religion was founded by one!
Your whole ancestry and the history of this country is one of paedophilia. It wasnt until the 16th century onwards that people stopped widely marrying children. Richard the 2nd married a 6 year old girl for example, and when he died she went on to marry her cousin. Paedophilia and incest in UK monarchy shocker.
1
2
In reply to KevinD:
Straw's stance in 2003 was precisely the example which came to my mind when I read the 'politicians of tomorrow' reply, given the politics of his younger days.
> As for the politicians of tomorrow you only need to look at Jack Straw to see how much those positions change.
Straw's stance in 2003 was precisely the example which came to my mind when I read the 'politicians of tomorrow' reply, given the politics of his younger days.
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
The most recent report (for 2015) says that total fatalities in Europe through terrorist attacks were 151, of which 150 were from Islamist attacks. Most of those responsible were not of European ancestry.
> Tip: Read through the annual Europol TE-SAT.
The most recent report (for 2015) says that total fatalities in Europe through terrorist attacks were 151, of which 150 were from Islamist attacks. Most of those responsible were not of European ancestry.
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Sorry if I was unclear. I was saying that you can't tell which Muslims are going to be radicalised, whether they're going to be UK nationals, immigrants from years ago, etc. There isn't an option (despite what Trump says!) of using religion as an immigration criterion, and there is nothing you can do about people who are here already. It's one massive moot point - the only thing you can achieve by talking about a "shut down on Muslims entering Europe" is stir up hatred, it's not a real policy option, it's stupid.
This is not clear at all. You hint that there should be some change in immigration policy (here? in Germany?) as a response to Islamic terrorism, but I'm still no wiser as to what you're actually talking about. Or do you just like the Trump idea of "a complete shut-down"?
> Well there is one indicator which actually correlates rather well with who might become radicalised and commit terrorist acts, and that is if they are Muslim (but not Ahmadi Muslim).
Sorry if I was unclear. I was saying that you can't tell which Muslims are going to be radicalised, whether they're going to be UK nationals, immigrants from years ago, etc. There isn't an option (despite what Trump says!) of using religion as an immigration criterion, and there is nothing you can do about people who are here already. It's one massive moot point - the only thing you can achieve by talking about a "shut down on Muslims entering Europe" is stir up hatred, it's not a real policy option, it's stupid.
> It is not a completely different thing, given free movement in Europe (and also given possibilities such as Turkey getting pissed off at the EU, and no longer holding back people from EU borders).
This is not clear at all. You hint that there should be some change in immigration policy (here? in Germany?) as a response to Islamic terrorism, but I'm still no wiser as to what you're actually talking about. Or do you just like the Trump idea of "a complete shut-down"?
2
1
In reply to Big Ger:
The same mistake we make to tar all Muslims, and to say they are a threat - is the same mistake they make when they tar all of 'the West' for the crimes of the few. As the self-proclaimed superior civilization, we should make the first move by showing how this is done - by accepting Muslims who have done nothing wrong, and do nothing wrong for who they are.
> I agree with you that the Iraq war is a stain on the west, I think Bliar and Chimp should be hung as war criminals.
> But does the removal of Saddam, justify running people down with trucks in Germany? The German Federal Government did not send its own soldiers to Iraq after all.
The same mistake we make to tar all Muslims, and to say they are a threat - is the same mistake they make when they tar all of 'the West' for the crimes of the few. As the self-proclaimed superior civilization, we should make the first move by showing how this is done - by accepting Muslims who have done nothing wrong, and do nothing wrong for who they are.
3
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
So what fraction of immigrants were terrorists, and how does that compare with the fraction of terrorists in the UK population?
So what fraction of immigrants were terrorists, and how does that compare with the fraction of terrorists in the UK population?
1
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
And Ayaan Hersi Ali. A woman who was "cut" as a five year old, who had a death threat pinned to the body of a political collaborator in Holland. A woman that need continuous armed protection. All because she speaks out against the injustices of Islam.
> There are plenty of other examples. Most of the output of the Huffington Post for example (and some of the output of the Guardian). An egregious example was the Southern Law Poverty Center labeling Maajid Nawaz an "anti-Muslim extremist". That's the sort of thing that shows that "the left" has lost its marbles over Islamism.
And Ayaan Hersi Ali. A woman who was "cut" as a five year old, who had a death threat pinned to the body of a political collaborator in Holland. A woman that need continuous armed protection. All because she speaks out against the injustices of Islam.
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
But again, this is you saying there is some essence to Islam (or Christianity) that you understand and that those practicing Muslims don't. I don't believe in God and I don't believe there is any one true understanding of the Qur'an. What Muslims believe and do is Islam, because it is nothing beyond a sedimented social construct of the believers. They are only lukewarm to you because you say you know what hot is, that they are not living up to the full form of the religion.
I've had this conversation with observant Muslims friends - one was telling me that ISIS members can't be Muslims because they go against what she saw as fundamental precepts of her faith - she believed she knew what true Islam is and ISIS members weren't in. I've not met any ISIS members, not that I know of anyway, but I have met and spoken with committed Islamists and Salafis, and they very much think they are good Muslims just like my friend does despite disagreeing fundamentally on many things.
> Through many people cherry-picking their religion or believing it in a luke-warm way.
But again, this is you saying there is some essence to Islam (or Christianity) that you understand and that those practicing Muslims don't. I don't believe in God and I don't believe there is any one true understanding of the Qur'an. What Muslims believe and do is Islam, because it is nothing beyond a sedimented social construct of the believers. They are only lukewarm to you because you say you know what hot is, that they are not living up to the full form of the religion.
I've had this conversation with observant Muslims friends - one was telling me that ISIS members can't be Muslims because they go against what she saw as fundamental precepts of her faith - she believed she knew what true Islam is and ISIS members weren't in. I've not met any ISIS members, not that I know of anyway, but I have met and spoken with committed Islamists and Salafis, and they very much think they are good Muslims just like my friend does despite disagreeing fundamentally on many things.
4
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
As far as I can make out, this article comes from a 2007 book written by Mark Steyn.
((Steyn, Mark, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Regnery Publishing, 2006))
As far as I can make out, this article comes from a 2007 book written by Mark Steyn.
((Steyn, Mark, America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, Regnery Publishing, 2006))
1
1
In reply to Hugh J:
It was the quote that did it.
Thanks for the clarification, no apology needed. Yep certainly the implication of apologist / SJW was being bandied about by others wasn't it. And still is, it appears. It's deeply offensive to me, for good reasons.
I'm sceptical on that. But given the sh!t that's come from Big Ger's keyboard in my direction both in this thread and in a previous installment, that's not surprising. I think he's a vicious and cowardly bully, and I don't believe I'll ever find common ground with him even if we may agree on some specific points.
> I am a bit confused how you came to this conclusion from my post, apart from the fact that I quoted you.
It was the quote that did it.
> Again, I did not call you or anyone an apologist or an SJW. Perhaps you felt that because others had, I was making that implication too. The subsequent "treading on eggshells" and "some throwing grenades" is my real point. Still, I'm sorry that it caused you offense.
Thanks for the clarification, no apology needed. Yep certainly the implication of apologist / SJW was being bandied about by others wasn't it. And still is, it appears. It's deeply offensive to me, for good reasons.
> I think at the end of the day we are all more or less on the same page, even Jon and Big Ger! But we don't always realise it.
I'm sceptical on that. But given the sh!t that's come from Big Ger's keyboard in my direction both in this thread and in a previous installment, that's not surprising. I think he's a vicious and cowardly bully, and I don't believe I'll ever find common ground with him even if we may agree on some specific points.
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Nobody thinks this. Why would they? No one here has ever suggested that anything justifies any terrorist attack.
> But does the removal of Saddam, justify running people down with trucks in Germany?
Nobody thinks this. Why would they? No one here has ever suggested that anything justifies any terrorist attack.
3
1
In reply to SenzuBean:
Agreed. Who did that BTW?
Agreed, who hasn't done that BTW?
Oh, bye the bye, you may go about proclaiming the UK to be a "superior civilization", along with a few Yanks bragging up the USA, but I don't, neither does anyone else I know.
> The same mistake we make to tar all Muslims, and to say they are a threat - is the same mistake they make when they tar all of 'the West' for the crimes of the few.
Agreed. Who did that BTW?
> As the self-proclaimed superior civilization, we should make the first move by showing how this is done - by accepting Muslims who have done nothing wrong, and do nothing wrong for who they are.
Agreed, who hasn't done that BTW?
Oh, bye the bye, you may go about proclaiming the UK to be a "superior civilization", along with a few Yanks bragging up the USA, but I don't, neither does anyone else I know.
Post edited at 23:38
2
2
In reply to SenzuBean:
Spot on.
However, it has to come with the proviso that this is our society, these are the rules and these are the values you need to respect.
(My SJW radar is going bonkers here!)
Or otherwise, there's the door.
> The same mistake we make to tar all Muslims, and to say they are a threat - is the same mistake they make when they tar all of 'the West' for the crimes of the few. As the self-proclaimed superior civilization, we should make the first move by showing how this is done - by accepting Muslims who have done nothing wrong, and do nothing wrong for who they are.
Spot on.
However, it has to come with the proviso that this is our society, these are the rules and these are the values you need to respect.
(My SJW radar is going bonkers here!)
Or otherwise, there's the door.
7
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Might seem like a cheap gag, but be careful where you say it. One unpleasant and racist Finnish politician got convicted under Finnish blasphemy laws for saying exactly that a few years ago and was fined €330.
And of course lots of Muslims find it hugely hurtful, but I guess perhaps that's the general idea.
> FFS, don't mention paedophiles on a thread concerning Islam, the whole religion was founded by one!
Might seem like a cheap gag, but be careful where you say it. One unpleasant and racist Finnish politician got convicted under Finnish blasphemy laws for saying exactly that a few years ago and was fined €330.
And of course lots of Muslims find it hugely hurtful, but I guess perhaps that's the general idea.
1
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Agreed.
So why was the war brought into this thread, on a ten year old article, which coincidentally was posted here after a Terrorist attack on Germany?
> Nobody thinks this. Why would they? No one here has ever suggested that anything justifies any terrorist attack.
Agreed.
So why was the war brought into this thread, on a ten year old article, which coincidentally was posted here after a Terrorist attack on Germany?
1
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
The alleged perpetrator of this mass murder event is a refugee.
Do you remember this ... ? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/19/daily-mail-mac-cartoon-muslims-r...
No doubt you were probably preaching that they're all innocent at the time.
The alleged perpetrator of this mass murder event is a refugee.
Do you remember this ... ? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/19/daily-mail-mac-cartoon-muslims-r...
No doubt you were probably preaching that they're all innocent at the time.
1
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Ask whoever mentioned it if you didn't see the relevance, but don't accuse them of justifying terrorist attacks, because it's ludicrous.
Ask whoever mentioned it if you didn't see the relevance, but don't accuse them of justifying terrorist attacks, because it's ludicrous.
2
1
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I accused no one mate, I asked if it did. It was brought up as a mitigation of terrorist attacks in Europe.
Thus;
> Ask whoever mentioned it if you didn't see the relevance, but don't accuse them of justifying terrorist attacks, because it's ludicrous.
I accused no one mate, I asked if it did. It was brought up as a mitigation of terrorist attacks in Europe.
Thus;
> Far more people have died (both directly and indirectly, from famine and lack of healthcare) at the hand of Western 'intervention', than from the retaliation by extremists.
2
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I used to think this about Big Ger, but he does make some very good points sometimes that are well worth considering, I have. To tell the truth, I don't think he's quite as vicious as you think he is. I also guess he's not from your generation either.
BTW, he is also an incorrigible troll from time to time!
(G'day Big Ger!)
> I'm sceptical on that. But given the sh!t that's come from Big Ger's keyboard in my direction both in this thread and in a previous installment, that's not surprising. I think he's a vicious and cowardly bully, and I don't believe I'll ever find common ground with him even if we may agree on some specific points.
I used to think this about Big Ger, but he does make some very good points sometimes that are well worth considering, I have. To tell the truth, I don't think he's quite as vicious as you think he is. I also guess he's not from your generation either.
BTW, he is also an incorrigible troll from time to time!
(G'day Big Ger!)
2
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Morning..
Note how MC doesn't have the heart nor stomach to quote "the sh!t " I have addressed to him, nor my " vicious and cowardly bully(ing)" of him.
But there again, anyone who thinks they can be bullied by someone posting opposing views on a forum must be a VSS after all.
ETA:
Of the 261 current posts in this thread;
17 posts made by me
6 posts addressed to MC by me
4 posts addressed by MC to me.
Can I claim oppression yet?
Morning..
Note how MC doesn't have the heart nor stomach to quote "the sh!t " I have addressed to him, nor my " vicious and cowardly bully(ing)" of him.
But there again, anyone who thinks they can be bullied by someone posting opposing views on a forum must be a VSS after all.
ETA:
Of the 261 current posts in this thread;
17 posts made by me
6 posts addressed to MC by me
4 posts addressed by MC to me.
Can I claim oppression yet?
Post edited at 00:04
1
2
In reply to Lusk:
He wasn't a refugee, he was a known criminal from Tunisia who posed as an asylum seeker and was not given asylum. He was due to be deported and was under surveillance, or should have been.
That's assuming he was the perpetrator, leaving his wallet in the truck seems like it could be a false clue.
He wasn't a refugee, he was a known criminal from Tunisia who posed as an asylum seeker and was not given asylum. He was due to be deported and was under surveillance, or should have been.
That's assuming he was the perpetrator, leaving his wallet in the truck seems like it could be a false clue.
Post edited at 23:51
1
In reply to TobyA:
Fair point, but no offense was intended, as you say, a cheap gag and as Mr Lopez has pointed out about our ancient society, it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. (Am I still allowed to say that?)
> And of course lots of Muslims find it hugely hurtful, but I guess perhaps that's the general idea.
Fair point, but no offense was intended, as you say, a cheap gag and as Mr Lopez has pointed out about our ancient society, it's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. (Am I still allowed to say that?)
2
In reply to marsbar:
Hmmm . . . . Does seem a bit of an obvious clue and could well be a plant by the real perpetrator.
As an aside. Think of that poor guy of "Afghan or Pakistani" origin who ran off after the attack and was arrested as the original suspect. It's bad enough that he probably saw it all happen, but then his next thought must have been, "I'm gonna get lynched here!" No wonder he ran, I'm pretty sure I'd have done the same.
> He wasn't a refugee, he was a known criminal from Tunisia who posed as an asylum seeker and was not given asylum. He was due to be deported and was under surveillance, or should have been.
> That's assuming he was the perpetrator, leaving his wallet in the truck seems like it could be a false clue.
Hmmm . . . . Does seem a bit of an obvious clue and could well be a plant by the real perpetrator.
As an aside. Think of that poor guy of "Afghan or Pakistani" origin who ran off after the attack and was arrested as the original suspect. It's bad enough that he probably saw it all happen, but then his next thought must have been, "I'm gonna get lynched here!" No wonder he ran, I'm pretty sure I'd have done the same.
Post edited at 00:05
1
In reply to Hugh J:
There are various forms of Islamism and you can perhaps sort of stretch the term enough to include terrorist groups, but for most Arabic speakers the terms is much more limited and specific - relating to political parties like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its spin offs in other Middle East countries. Those parties do not support the things you are saying above.
It's actually Salafism that often gets subdivided into the Quietist and Jihadi forms, but even there Salafi views aren't really what you are saying above. I think you would find the BBC World Service documentary series I linked above eye opening on this, or at least have a read of something like this: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/07/15/islamism-salafism-and-jiha...
> Another thing that needs to be understood is that there are elements of the Muslim faith that are Islamists. There are two types of Islamists. One type are the theologians that believe the whole human race should be Islamic or else be second class citizens, known as "dhimma". The other are the Jihadists, who believe the whole human race should be Islamic or exterminated.
There are various forms of Islamism and you can perhaps sort of stretch the term enough to include terrorist groups, but for most Arabic speakers the terms is much more limited and specific - relating to political parties like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and its spin offs in other Middle East countries. Those parties do not support the things you are saying above.
It's actually Salafism that often gets subdivided into the Quietist and Jihadi forms, but even there Salafi views aren't really what you are saying above. I think you would find the BBC World Service documentary series I linked above eye opening on this, or at least have a read of something like this: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/07/15/islamism-salafism-and-jiha...
3
1
In reply to TobyA:
Thanks Toby. I always appreciate differing points of view, it's the only way to get anywhere near the real truth. I'll give that a go.
Thanks Toby. I always appreciate differing points of view, it's the only way to get anywhere near the real truth. I'll give that a go.
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Fair play Luke - 260+ post in 12 hours. That got the Off Belay posters going!
A really good debate though.
Fair play Luke - 260+ post in 12 hours. That got the Off Belay posters going!
A really good debate though.
3
In reply to Hugh J:
Well worth his searching behind the firewall of a Melbourne Sunday newspaper, in order to find an article to kick off debate eh?
We're lucky MC is so diligent.
Well worth his searching behind the firewall of a Melbourne Sunday newspaper, in order to find an article to kick off debate eh?
We're lucky MC is so diligent.
Post edited at 01:38
2
3
In reply to Hugh J:
As a slight a side, I listened to this recently. It's Gad Saad talking to Professor Jordan Peterson about freedom of speech. I liked Peterson's opinions in a lot of this discussion, particularly that in debate we should be allowed to stumble around like an idiot whilst we are formulating our opinions on things. If we're all honest, we all do that from time to time, obviously some more than others. But surely this is the true essence of debate?
The video is long, about an hour, but well worth the effort if you've got the time.
youtube.com/watch?v=Bpim_n0r0z0&
Also (not so long), check out these videos of Peterson getting abused by idiotic social justice warriors. The first is a rally at the University of Toronto where he is passionately spelling out his concerns with a bill called C-16 (more detail in the first video). I think the second is an aftermath. I guess the bit in the second video where there is a reference to Nazis being at his rally and people getting hurt, is related to the incident where someone pulls a cable out of speaker the SJWs are using to drown out Peterson with load music! I certainly can't see any white supremacist types! Warning: Both videos are truly cringe worthy:
youtube.com/watch?v=HAlPjMiaKdw&
youtube.com/watch?v=O-nvNAcvUPE&
As a slight a side, I listened to this recently. It's Gad Saad talking to Professor Jordan Peterson about freedom of speech. I liked Peterson's opinions in a lot of this discussion, particularly that in debate we should be allowed to stumble around like an idiot whilst we are formulating our opinions on things. If we're all honest, we all do that from time to time, obviously some more than others. But surely this is the true essence of debate?
The video is long, about an hour, but well worth the effort if you've got the time.
youtube.com/watch?v=Bpim_n0r0z0&
Also (not so long), check out these videos of Peterson getting abused by idiotic social justice warriors. The first is a rally at the University of Toronto where he is passionately spelling out his concerns with a bill called C-16 (more detail in the first video). I think the second is an aftermath. I guess the bit in the second video where there is a reference to Nazis being at his rally and people getting hurt, is related to the incident where someone pulls a cable out of speaker the SJWs are using to drown out Peterson with load music! I certainly can't see any white supremacist types! Warning: Both videos are truly cringe worthy:
youtube.com/watch?v=HAlPjMiaKdw&
youtube.com/watch?v=O-nvNAcvUPE&
1
In reply to Hugh J:
@ 45'20" LMAO "The sneaky f*cker strategy" !!!!!!
> The video is long, about an hour, but well worth the effort if you've got the time.
@ 45'20" LMAO "The sneaky f*cker strategy" !!!!!!
Post edited at 03:58
1
In reply to Hugh J:
I liked this @ 1:07:24 ". . . . . the highest calling of every individual is to utter their articulated truth in a manner that keeps chaos and order properly balanced."
Thought for the day?
In fact, the last part of this conversation is quite brilliant, but it's still well worth watching the rest.
> The video is long, about an hour, but well worth the effort if you've got the time.
I liked this @ 1:07:24 ". . . . . the highest calling of every individual is to utter their articulated truth in a manner that keeps chaos and order properly balanced."
Thought for the day?
In fact, the last part of this conversation is quite brilliant, but it's still well worth watching the rest.
Post edited at 05:17
1
In reply to Big Ger:
I'm increasingly of the opinion that you're a genuine nut.
Cheers for the statistical illustration of such. Have you done any 'private' googling on me perchance? You give the impression of someone who gets a bit f*cking obsessed.
The irony of your criticism is deeply obvious: you've neither the heart nor stomach to use your real name, nor to post a profile pic.
In debate you use disambiguation, non-sequiturs, petty semantics and logical fallacies to deflect sensible argument, which (ironically) you consistently fail to engage in. Why would I respond to your trolling?
I'm increasingly of the opinion that you're a genuine nut.
Cheers for the statistical illustration of such. Have you done any 'private' googling on me perchance? You give the impression of someone who gets a bit f*cking obsessed.
The irony of your criticism is deeply obvious: you've neither the heart nor stomach to use your real name, nor to post a profile pic.
In debate you use disambiguation, non-sequiturs, petty semantics and logical fallacies to deflect sensible argument, which (ironically) you consistently fail to engage in. Why would I respond to your trolling?
2
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I'm heartbroken I tell you you, heartbroken....
You really have too high an opinion of yourself don't you? The entertainment value you provide me with begins and ends with your posts dear boy.
None of which you quote or show examples of....
Oh the irony.
To personally attack me and vilify me for not having the same opinions as you mayhap?
Now, and be honest, how did you come across this article which was behind a paywall, on a sunday, Melbourne, Australian, newspaper website?
> I'm increasingly of the opinion that you're a genuine nut.
I'm heartbroken I tell you you, heartbroken....
> Have you done any 'private' googling on me perchance? You give the impression of someone who gets a bit f*cking obsessed.
You really have too high an opinion of yourself don't you? The entertainment value you provide me with begins and ends with your posts dear boy.
> In debate you use disambiguation, non-sequiturs, petty semantics and logical fallacies to deflect sensible argument, which (ironically) you consistently fail to engage in.
None of which you quote or show examples of....
> Why would I respond to your trolling?
Oh the irony.
To personally attack me and vilify me for not having the same opinions as you mayhap?
Now, and be honest, how did you come across this article which was behind a paywall, on a sunday, Melbourne, Australian, newspaper website?
Post edited at 07:19
6
3
In reply to Big Ger:
It was in my Google news feed, thanks.
> Well worth his searching behind the firewall of a Melbourne Sunday newspaper, in order to find an article to kick off debate eh?
> We're lucky MC is so diligent.
>
It was in my Google news feed, thanks.
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Now how would it get there? You see, I have a google news feed, and I'm actually in Australia, and I didn't know of it's existence until you kindly brought it here.
And, why would your google news feed bring you paywalled articles which aren't in the news section of that paper's website? It was in the "opinion" section.
"You've reached a
PREMIUM article
To read this article, subscribe today and get unrestricted access on all your devices."
Did you see the title; Leaders fiddle as our way of life burns
TWELVE people died in Germany due to a reckless Western political class doubling down on a mad sociopolitical experiment that can only and decide to take out a subscription?
> It was in my Google news feed, thanks.
Now how would it get there? You see, I have a google news feed, and I'm actually in Australia, and I didn't know of it's existence until you kindly brought it here.
And, why would your google news feed bring you paywalled articles which aren't in the news section of that paper's website? It was in the "opinion" section.
"You've reached a
PREMIUM article
To read this article, subscribe today and get unrestricted access on all your devices."
Did you see the title; Leaders fiddle as our way of life burns
TWELVE people died in Germany due to a reckless Western political class doubling down on a mad sociopolitical experiment that can only and decide to take out a subscription?
Post edited at 08:06
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
I've no idea. I clicked on my link a total of four times: three times it opened, once it didn't. Your link takes me straight to the subscribe page. Try this, as I've just done it - do a Google News search for Steyn. His article is the top result. The link Google provide (at least in the UK) took me straight to the article, again no sub needed. Quite clearly it works for me, but may not work for others, hence my response to Trangia at the start of the thread. Do you really think I'd be stupid enough to pay for premium content, then place a pay-only link on the forum? I guess you do, which says a lot more about your way of thinking than it does mine. Someone who slings mud in this way, also thinks this way, and you're showing yourself to be a pretty scurrilous piece of crap (IMO).
Personally I find the outlet reprehensible, so I won't post the link, much less take out a subscription. But even if I did have a sub, what do you imagine it would prove? As I say above, were it not for Steyn's published extremist views, the article itself would be just another wearisome piece of hate rhetoric. I made this point already, which seems to be a common theme with you doesn't it:
So your logic (unsurprisingly) has fundamental flaws:
- it's *still* a mainstream news source, regardless of whether it's paywall or not
- it's still hateful and inflammatory rhetoric
- equivalent stuff can be heard uttered in many different (uh, non-paywall) outlets - Farage was on a talk radio show only a couple of days ago saying something similar about how this is 'Merkel's fault'
> Now how would it get there? You see, I have a google news feed, and I'm actually in Australia, and I didn't know of it's existence until you kindly brought it here.
I've no idea. I clicked on my link a total of four times: three times it opened, once it didn't. Your link takes me straight to the subscribe page. Try this, as I've just done it - do a Google News search for Steyn. His article is the top result. The link Google provide (at least in the UK) took me straight to the article, again no sub needed. Quite clearly it works for me, but may not work for others, hence my response to Trangia at the start of the thread. Do you really think I'd be stupid enough to pay for premium content, then place a pay-only link on the forum? I guess you do, which says a lot more about your way of thinking than it does mine. Someone who slings mud in this way, also thinks this way, and you're showing yourself to be a pretty scurrilous piece of crap (IMO).
Personally I find the outlet reprehensible, so I won't post the link, much less take out a subscription. But even if I did have a sub, what do you imagine it would prove? As I say above, were it not for Steyn's published extremist views, the article itself would be just another wearisome piece of hate rhetoric. I made this point already, which seems to be a common theme with you doesn't it:
> I read the article, smelt something rancid and looked further - the 'cull' quote came up pretty quickly. I like to know a little about writers' backgrounds, it helps me understand their views and their agendas. The fact that someone who espouses (even theoretically) such an outlandish and hateful viewpoint, is also allowed access to column inches in mainstream news sources, is the entire point of my post. Otherwise we'd just be discussing yet another dreary low-level hate diatribe. Many of the writers at such rags don't even believe the rubbish they're paid to generate.
So your logic (unsurprisingly) has fundamental flaws:
- it's *still* a mainstream news source, regardless of whether it's paywall or not
- it's still hateful and inflammatory rhetoric
- equivalent stuff can be heard uttered in many different (uh, non-paywall) outlets - Farage was on a talk radio show only a couple of days ago saying something similar about how this is 'Merkel's fault'
Post edited at 08:44
1
2
In reply to Big Ger:
It's not behind a paywall for me. Probably you can read a certain number of articles a month for free. With the NYT it is 10 I think.
But we could discuss the issues rather than just calling each other names.
It's not behind a paywall for me. Probably you can read a certain number of articles a month for free. With the NYT it is 10 I think.
But we could discuss the issues rather than just calling each other names.
3
1
In reply to TobyA:
It blinks on and off the paywall for me too, I've never read it before, I prefer the SMH myself.
That would be nice.
> It's not behind a paywall for me. Probably you can read a certain number of articles a month for free. With the NYT it is 10 I think.
It blinks on and off the paywall for me too, I've never read it before, I prefer the SMH myself.
> But we could discuss the issues rather than just calling each other names.
That would be nice.
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
LOL!! I'm sure that this did "appear in your google news feed" honest. Maybe you keep searching for stuff to be offended by, and google adapts accordingly.
I neither know nor care how stupid you are, the debate here is about the facts in hand, you are the one personalising it, even going so far as to insult yourself..
Oh, more irony! You really are good at that.
What "mud" have I slung? (he said expecting no answer.)
The Herald Sun is quite a left wing rag for a Murdoch paper, but you'd know that seeing as you have it in your (Australian) news feed.
Oh, so you want to censor him, gag him even, for having a different opinion to you. Burnt any good books recently?
So why are you so irate, why bring it out from behind the paywall here?
I've not said any different, my logic remains intact.
I've not said any different, my logic remains intact.
And?
You're tying yourself up in knots, I really don't think you have a clue what you are ranting about here.
> I've no idea. I clicked on my link a total of four times: three times it opened, once it didn't. Your link takes me straight to the subscribe page. Try this, as I've just done it - do a Google News search for Steyn. His article is the top result. The link Google provide (at least in the UK) took me straight to the article, again no sub needed. Quite clearly it works for me, but may not work for others, hence my response to Trangia at the start of the thread.
LOL!! I'm sure that this did "appear in your google news feed" honest. Maybe you keep searching for stuff to be offended by, and google adapts accordingly.
> Do you really think I'd be stupid enough to pay for premium content, then place a pay-only link on the forum?
I neither know nor care how stupid you are, the debate here is about the facts in hand, you are the one personalising it, even going so far as to insult yourself..
> I guess you do, which says a lot more about your way of thinking than it does mine. Someone who slings mud in this way, also thinks this way, and you're showing yourself to be a pretty scurrilous piece of crap (IMO).
Oh, more irony! You really are good at that.
What "mud" have I slung? (he said expecting no answer.)
> Personally I find the outlet reprehensible, so I won't post the link, much less take out a subscription.
The Herald Sun is quite a left wing rag for a Murdoch paper, but you'd know that seeing as you have it in your (Australian) news feed.
> But even if I did have a sub, what do you imagine it would prove? As I say above, were it not for Steyn's published extremist views, the article itself would be just another wearisome piece of hate rhetoric. I made this point already, which seems to be a common theme with you doesn't it:
> I read the article, smelt something rancid and looked further - the 'cull' quote came up pretty quickly. I like to know a little about writers' backgrounds, it helps me understand their views and their agendas. The fact that someone who espouses (even theoretically) such an outlandish and hateful viewpoint, is also allowed access to column inches in mainstream news sources, is the entire point of my post.
Oh, so you want to censor him, gag him even, for having a different opinion to you. Burnt any good books recently?
> Otherwise we'd just be discussing yet another dreary low-level hate diatribe. Many of the writers at such rags don't even believe the rubbish they're paid to generate.
So why are you so irate, why bring it out from behind the paywall here?
> So your logic (unsurprisingly) has fundamental flaws:
> - it's *still* a mainstream news source, regardless of whether it's paywall or not
I've not said any different, my logic remains intact.
> - it's still hateful and inflammatory rhetoric
I've not said any different, my logic remains intact.
> - equivalent stuff can be heard uttered in many different (uh, non-paywall) outlets - Farage was on a talk radio show only a couple of days ago saying something similar about how this is 'Merkel's fault'
And?
You're tying yourself up in knots, I really don't think you have a clue what you are ranting about here.
Post edited at 09:00
4
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Are your searches for Chinese feminists? http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=655077
Are your searches for Chinese feminists? http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=655077
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Here are all the vile insults you've heaped on me since the start of this thread;
Now then, £50.00 to a charity of your choice, to you, or anyone else here, who can find an insult which I have posted in this thread against you, which justifies those infantile responses.
And yet you have the utter gall to call me a keyboard warrior who sling sh!t. Not a very nice mirror you're looking in their pal.
Here are all the vile insults you've heaped on me since the start of this thread;
> Mate your unpleasantness borders on psychotic in my humble opinion. I hope I never meet you. F*cking ridiculous internet keyboard warrior, chucking out insults from the safety of anonymity.
> You hide behind your keyboard and chat sh!t.
> But given the sh!t that's come from Big Ger's keyboard in my direction both in this thread and in a previous installment, that's not surprising. I think he's a vicious and cowardly bully, and I don't believe I'll ever find common ground with him even if we may agree on some specific points.
> I'm increasingly of the opinion that you're a genuine nut. Cheers for the statistical illustration of such. Have you done any 'private' googling on me perchance? You give the impression of someone who gets a bit f*cking obsessed. The irony of your criticism is deeply obvious: you've neither the heart nor stomach to use your real name, nor to post a profile pic.
> In debate you use disambiguation, non-sequiturs, petty semantics and logical fallacies to deflect sensible argument, which (ironically) you consistently fail to engage in. Why would I respond to your trolling?
> Someone who slings mud in this way, also thinks this way, and you're showing yourself to be a pretty scurrilous piece of crap (IMO).
Now then, £50.00 to a charity of your choice, to you, or anyone else here, who can find an insult which I have posted in this thread against you, which justifies those infantile responses.
And yet you have the utter gall to call me a keyboard warrior who sling sh!t. Not a very nice mirror you're looking in their pal.
Post edited at 09:13
7
2
1
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Gall? Really? After the last episode, in which one respected and genuine poster said he'd never seen anything as unpleasant as your response to me in over ten years on UKC? And you talk about gall? But yes, I've responded like with like. Your behaviour led me to my conclusions about your character, so perhaps you could consider why I reply to you in a manner I don't use with others. I say what I see, and I would gladly say the same to your face.
If you like, we could try to bury the hatchet here and now. I won't insult your character if you don't insult mine, and we could stick with the debate without the unnecessary personal attacks.
You haven't tried to counter the fundamental point of the thread, namely that hateful rhetoric is increasingly commonplace in mainstream media. Apparently you actually agree with me:
Gall? Really? After the last episode, in which one respected and genuine poster said he'd never seen anything as unpleasant as your response to me in over ten years on UKC? And you talk about gall? But yes, I've responded like with like. Your behaviour led me to my conclusions about your character, so perhaps you could consider why I reply to you in a manner I don't use with others. I say what I see, and I would gladly say the same to your face.
If you like, we could try to bury the hatchet here and now. I won't insult your character if you don't insult mine, and we could stick with the debate without the unnecessary personal attacks.
You haven't tried to counter the fundamental point of the thread, namely that hateful rhetoric is increasingly commonplace in mainstream media. Apparently you actually agree with me:
> - it's *still* a mainstream news source, regardless of whether it's paywall or not
> I've not said any different, my logic remains intact.
> - it's still hateful and inflammatory rhetoric
> I've not said any different, my logic remains intact.
1
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Minor point, but please don't be offended by "SJW". It's a term that's chucked around by proper, unreconstructed racists, sexists and homophobes to delegitimize anyone who stands up to them, and accepting it as a Bad Thing adds to its power and hence theirs. Social justice is precisely the sort of Western Value that a lot of people in this thread say we should be doing more to stand up for - please don't turn it into a dirty word!
(Also, whenever I read it I tend to assume that the writer is a basement-dwelling teenager who's upset that the latest edition of their favourite game franchise doesn't have enough boobies in it.)
> Thanks for the clarification, no apology needed. Yep certainly the implication of apologist / SJW was being bandied about by others wasn't it. And still is, it appears. It's deeply offensive to me, for good reasons.
Minor point, but please don't be offended by "SJW". It's a term that's chucked around by proper, unreconstructed racists, sexists and homophobes to delegitimize anyone who stands up to them, and accepting it as a Bad Thing adds to its power and hence theirs. Social justice is precisely the sort of Western Value that a lot of people in this thread say we should be doing more to stand up for - please don't turn it into a dirty word!
(Also, whenever I read it I tend to assume that the writer is a basement-dwelling teenager who's upset that the latest edition of their favourite game franchise doesn't have enough boobies in it.)
5
2
In reply to Ramblin dave:
It is a useful term, alongside special snowflake, to indicate there isnt much point in trying to have a sensible discussion.
> (Also, whenever I read it I tend to assume that the writer is a basement-dwelling teenager who's upset that the latest edition of their favourite game franchise doesn't have enough boobies in it.)
It is a useful term, alongside special snowflake, to indicate there isnt much point in trying to have a sensible discussion.
4
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
One like does not seem enough but I can only click once.
Ghandi, Mandela, Walesa, King, X, Pankhurst, Locke, Wilberforce, etc etc etc - all SJWs, not bad company to be put in really!
One like does not seem enough but I can only click once.
Ghandi, Mandela, Walesa, King, X, Pankhurst, Locke, Wilberforce, etc etc etc - all SJWs, not bad company to be put in really!
3
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Apologies Tom for this very delayed reply to your post.
Yes. It appears that there has been some over-sensitivity among government and some parts of the media, as to what constitutes racism. For example if Coel's statements about the Runnymede Trust's position on defining Islamophobia are correct, reasonable free speech is being condemned in some quarters. It doesn't bother me, but it's doubtless a contributory theme, and as you point out it undermines sensible debate.
I agree with this. My point isn't that one 'side' of the debate is inherently racist. I'm saying that reasonable sensible discussion over border control and means of integration has been hijacked in the mainstream media by vicious, racist entities. The debate itself has become skewed, but that doesn't imply that concerns over immigration are absolutely unreasonable in themselves. Clearly it needs good management - which this Government and its predecessors have failed on.
I replied to A Longleat Boulderer with this:
You said:
I completely agree. The argument that control of immigration is required is not inherently racist or discriminatory. It's a debate which needs to happen, because an adequate explanation of how it will be managed, against the backdrop of our changing economy, has not been provided as yet.
The article above however, is racist and discriminatory. It directly conflates immigration with terror, and infers that there is only one outcome if the West is to survive - ban immigration, presumably on the basis of religion. The author espouses a view which says in the absence of such a ban, violence against (Muslim) immigrants is the only logical conclusion. He shares his ethos with that of other far-right agitators such as Mr Farage, whose intention is to gain power by exploiting fear.
I'm dismayed by this creep within the mainstream towards such far-right interpretations of the situation.
Luke
Apologies Tom for this very delayed reply to your post.
> I think it was a huge mistake by the left to try and control debate by categorisation, declaration of 'unacceptability' and laws rather than engaging with them and using facts and logic. To some extent what we are seeing now is the result of this.
Yes. It appears that there has been some over-sensitivity among government and some parts of the media, as to what constitutes racism. For example if Coel's statements about the Runnymede Trust's position on defining Islamophobia are correct, reasonable free speech is being condemned in some quarters. It doesn't bother me, but it's doubtless a contributory theme, and as you point out it undermines sensible debate.
> You don't win arguments by determining something is 'racist' and therefore the debate is over and the person who said it should be jailed, all that happens is people keep their views to themselves and then vote for Brexit or Trump.
I agree with this. My point isn't that one 'side' of the debate is inherently racist. I'm saying that reasonable sensible discussion over border control and means of integration has been hijacked in the mainstream media by vicious, racist entities. The debate itself has become skewed, but that doesn't imply that concerns over immigration are absolutely unreasonable in themselves. Clearly it needs good management - which this Government and its predecessors have failed on.
I replied to A Longleat Boulderer with this:
> For me the problem is simply that those responsible for the narrative shown above, genuinely *are* racist, and use clever words and tactics to slither out of owning responsibility for their hateful opinions. Their intentions are vile; they are bereft of compassion and they capitalise on fear to increase their power. Writers such as Steyn and Delingpole. Media owners such as Bannon and Murdoch. Politicians such as Trump, Farage. They represent the thin end of the wedge... Reasonable concerns over the process of integration and control are ducked by weak, spending-averse Government, and it is all to easy for alt-right / fascist agitators to leverage these concerns using preferential media reporting and inflammatory rhetoric. This slow creep of far-right attitude seems to have invaded much of our culture and media, to the extent that it is becoming the new normal.
You said:
> ...the left needs to engage with the issue and either show that the premise is incorrect or provide a non-violent mechanism to address it or say it must be accepted because the solution is worse than the problem. What it can't do is throw up its hands, declare the argument 'racist' and walk away.
I completely agree. The argument that control of immigration is required is not inherently racist or discriminatory. It's a debate which needs to happen, because an adequate explanation of how it will be managed, against the backdrop of our changing economy, has not been provided as yet.
The article above however, is racist and discriminatory. It directly conflates immigration with terror, and infers that there is only one outcome if the West is to survive - ban immigration, presumably on the basis of religion. The author espouses a view which says in the absence of such a ban, violence against (Muslim) immigrants is the only logical conclusion. He shares his ethos with that of other far-right agitators such as Mr Farage, whose intention is to gain power by exploiting fear.
I'm dismayed by this creep within the mainstream towards such far-right interpretations of the situation.
Luke
Post edited at 11:00
1
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Excellent point, and thanks for the support. I was offended by the implication that being an 'SJW' means one is an apologist for atrocities committed by the other side, and to be honest that stung. Having seen outcomes of such atrocities in a very close-up manner in my previous career, the implication of apologism is disgusting to me and could not be further from the truth. I'm taking what you say on board, and will in future be proud to be labelled as such
> Minor point, but please don't be offended by "SJW". It's a term that's chucked around by proper, unreconstructed racists, sexists and homophobes to delegitimize anyone who stands up to them, and accepting it as a Bad Thing adds to its power and hence theirs. Social justice is precisely the sort of Western Value that a lot of people in this thread say we should be doing more to stand up for - please don't turn it into a dirty word!
Excellent point, and thanks for the support. I was offended by the implication that being an 'SJW' means one is an apologist for atrocities committed by the other side, and to be honest that stung. Having seen outcomes of such atrocities in a very close-up manner in my previous career, the implication of apologism is disgusting to me and could not be further from the truth. I'm taking what you say on board, and will in future be proud to be labelled as such
1
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
As what has been published isn't illegal (unless you're saying it is of course) perhaps the best approach would be to calmly put an alternative interpretation. As long as you're also prepared to accept people disagreeing with your interpretation (opinion).
> I'm dismayed by this creep within the mainstream towards such far-right interpretations of the situation.
As what has been published isn't illegal (unless you're saying it is of course) perhaps the best approach would be to calmly put an alternative interpretation. As long as you're also prepared to accept people disagreeing with your interpretation (opinion).
4
In reply to Sir Chasm:
To a degree I already have - I've stated quite a few times that I think the Government needs to spell out its plans on how to manage immigration. Unfortunately, because immigration management concerns are also general concerns (such as access to the systems of free-to-access healthcare and education, for example) the Government is unable to spell out its plans, because it's working systematically to undermine those very systems. Look at what's happened to our justice system for yet another example - on one side the police have been deeply affected by cuts; on the other free legal aid has become considerably harder to access.
The OP is not about me forming some utopian idea about how things would work in an ideal world. The concerns of many about immigration range from the valid, through the misplaced, to the pernicious. Filtering and addressing the valid concerns should be the first order of business for any responsible political leader, as that's their job.
I'm simply pointing out that the debate is being hijacked by people and entities with a vicious agenda. For a problem to be acted upon it must be identified, and I feel that too many people in this country are far too apathetic over the intrusion of the far-right into their daily lives. We digest the likes of Farage along with our coffee and cereal.
> perhaps the best approach would be to calmly put an alternative interpretation.
To a degree I already have - I've stated quite a few times that I think the Government needs to spell out its plans on how to manage immigration. Unfortunately, because immigration management concerns are also general concerns (such as access to the systems of free-to-access healthcare and education, for example) the Government is unable to spell out its plans, because it's working systematically to undermine those very systems. Look at what's happened to our justice system for yet another example - on one side the police have been deeply affected by cuts; on the other free legal aid has become considerably harder to access.
The OP is not about me forming some utopian idea about how things would work in an ideal world. The concerns of many about immigration range from the valid, through the misplaced, to the pernicious. Filtering and addressing the valid concerns should be the first order of business for any responsible political leader, as that's their job.
I'm simply pointing out that the debate is being hijacked by people and entities with a vicious agenda. For a problem to be acted upon it must be identified, and I feel that too many people in this country are far too apathetic over the intrusion of the far-right into their daily lives. We digest the likes of Farage along with our coffee and cereal.
1
1
In reply to Bootrock:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32929855
Terrorism is not religion-specific, and that's because idiots and arseholes are everywhere, across all groups and religion. And none are immune to be hijacked by violent extremists political movements. You know, the kind you seem to support.
> Well I don't see many Sikhs cutting people's heads off in our streets.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_India_Flight_182
> I don't see many Buddhists driving trucks down streets of families and kids?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32929855
Terrorism is not religion-specific, and that's because idiots and arseholes are everywhere, across all groups and religion. And none are immune to be hijacked by violent extremists political movements. You know, the kind you seem to support.
Post edited at 11:46
5
4
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
"and I feel that too many people in this country are far too apathetic over the intrusion of the far-right into their daily lives. We digest the likes of Farage along with our coffee and cereal."
I think you have underestimated it. A lot of people are GLAD to have Farage and others come to prominence in their daily lives. As such, papers are playing to the crowd and giving like minded people column inches. Obviously some are more right wing than others, but this is the new zeitgeist. How did this come to pass? Well I think we have covered it partly above.
"and I feel that too many people in this country are far too apathetic over the intrusion of the far-right into their daily lives. We digest the likes of Farage along with our coffee and cereal."
I think you have underestimated it. A lot of people are GLAD to have Farage and others come to prominence in their daily lives. As such, papers are playing to the crowd and giving like minded people column inches. Obviously some are more right wing than others, but this is the new zeitgeist. How did this come to pass? Well I think we have covered it partly above.
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Well it appeared to me that you thought it was unacceptable to publish such material, which seems to me to be taking "identifying" it a step too far and veering into the "banning stuff I don't like" lane.
Well it appeared to me that you thought it was unacceptable to publish such material, which seems to me to be taking "identifying" it a step too far and veering into the "banning stuff I don't like" lane.
3
1
1
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I think there's a big and important difference between "X should be banned" and "X should horrify all right-thinking people to the extent that it'd be commercially unthinkable for a mainstream newspaper to publish it".
I think there's a big and important difference between "X should be banned" and "X should horrify all right-thinking people to the extent that it'd be commercially unthinkable for a mainstream newspaper to publish it".
4
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
lol, that was my thought- you beat me to it...
> Are your searches for Chinese feminists? http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=655077
lol, that was my thought- you beat me to it...
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Which is odd because the most commercially successful newspaper in the UK is the Daily Mail. I know there is a campaign to try and stop advertisers using the paper, but the numbers don't lie...it's hugely popular
Which is odd because the most commercially successful newspaper in the UK is the Daily Mail. I know there is a campaign to try and stop advertisers using the paper, but the numbers don't lie...it's hugely popular
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
13:25 yesterday seems to suggest it, as I clearly said, it's my interpretation. But you can make it clear now whether or not you want a ban.
> When did I suggest a ban?
13:25 yesterday seems to suggest it, as I clearly said, it's my interpretation. But you can make it clear now whether or not you want a ban.
1
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Well yes, as long as your spin on what's actually being said isn't too lopsided.
> I think there's a big and important difference between "X should be banned" and "X should horrify all right-thinking people to the extent that it'd be commercially unthinkable for a mainstream newspaper to publish it".
Well yes, as long as your spin on what's actually being said isn't too lopsided.
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
It's interesting that so far, two others have 'liked' your post. I've never once suggested any kind of ban.
Moreover, nobody, including you, has asked what I would prefer to see being done about it.
For what it's worth, I saw no need to elaborate my position. I felt, perhaps naively, that once pieces like this have been correctly identified as inflammatory, hateful and discriminatory, people would feel empowered to actively reject their generation and consumption. As I've stated in previous threads, there is a world of difference between societal disapproval of a point of view, versus threatening jail (or violence) for having that point of view.
A bit akin to a situation where you have a racist individual gobbing off in a group. My preference is to call their words out for what they are, discussing such things openly tends to sort it out. Peer pressure is a lot more powerful in changing thinking, rather than angrily clamping a hand over someone's mouth. Again, to be clear, I've never suggested banning this kind of crap.
It's interesting that so far, two others have 'liked' your post. I've never once suggested any kind of ban.
Moreover, nobody, including you, has asked what I would prefer to see being done about it.
For what it's worth, I saw no need to elaborate my position. I felt, perhaps naively, that once pieces like this have been correctly identified as inflammatory, hateful and discriminatory, people would feel empowered to actively reject their generation and consumption. As I've stated in previous threads, there is a world of difference between societal disapproval of a point of view, versus threatening jail (or violence) for having that point of view.
A bit akin to a situation where you have a racist individual gobbing off in a group. My preference is to call their words out for what they are, discussing such things openly tends to sort it out. Peer pressure is a lot more powerful in changing thinking, rather than angrily clamping a hand over someone's mouth. Again, to be clear, I've never suggested banning this kind of crap.
Post edited at 12:22
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
At which time I said:
Which is the only part wherein there's any possible inference of my views. I said I didn't think there should be a safe space for such views, but that doesn't directly equate to any recommended action, whether that be a ban, or an informal boycott. In my opinion you could have asked me to elaborate before reaching your conclusion.
> When did I suggest a ban?
> 13:25 yesterday seems to suggest it, as I clearly said, it's my interpretation. But you can make it clear now whether or not you want a ban.
At which time I said:
> Quite clearly there's a conversation to be had, over how and in what way we integrate immigrants. But that doesn't mean there should be a special and untouchable safe space for discriminatory views to flourish.
Which is the only part wherein there's any possible inference of my views. I said I didn't think there should be a safe space for such views, but that doesn't directly equate to any recommended action, whether that be a ban, or an informal boycott. In my opinion you could have asked me to elaborate before reaching your conclusion.
1
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Yup.
> I think there's a big and important difference between "X should be banned" and "X should horrify all right-thinking people to the extent that it'd be commercially unthinkable for a mainstream newspaper to publish it".
Yup.
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I can't control how people interpret your postings, we all have to consider how what we write can be interpreted. Or not, you don't have to if you don't want.
Then as a society we reject the generation (publication) of views and opinions that the majority disapprove of? But they have to be published before we can disapprove of them, so where does that leave us? Does no-platforming help change views or is it an extra element of control?
That's fair enough, there'd be much less to discuss if nobody held/published views we disagreed with.
> It's interesting that so far, two others have 'liked' your post. I've never once suggested any kind of ban.
I can't control how people interpret your postings, we all have to consider how what we write can be interpreted. Or not, you don't have to if you don't want.
> Moreover, nobody, including you, has asked what I would prefer to see being done about it.
> For what it's worth, I saw no need to elaborate my position. I felt, perhaps naively, that once pieces like this have been correctly identified as inflammatory, hateful and discriminatory, people would feel empowered to actively reject their generation and consumption. As I've stated in previous threads, there is a world of difference between societal disapproval of a point of view, versus threatening jail (or violence) for having that point of view.
Then as a society we reject the generation (publication) of views and opinions that the majority disapprove of? But they have to be published before we can disapprove of them, so where does that leave us? Does no-platforming help change views or is it an extra element of control?
> A bit akin to a situation where you have a racist individual gobbing off in a group. My preference is to call their words out for what they are, discussing such things openly tends to sort it out. Peer pressure is a lot more powerful in changing thinking, rather than angrily clamping a hand over someone's mouth. Again, to be clear, I've never suggested banning this kind of crap.
That's fair enough, there'd be much less to discuss if nobody held/published views we disagreed with.
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
No, you can't and of course it's not your responsibility to manage how people interpret others' posts. But it is the responsibility of participants to a debate, if they feel a particular point of view is being inferred, to ask for clarification.
However you did, unlike many, at least open debate with me on this issue, rather than leaping to unreasonable conclusions such as:
You said:
It's an important and interesting point, which is central to my thinking on the issue. I think it's vital that legal avenues exist for the publication of any viewpoint. It is a democratic right that everyone is entitled to their opinions; to suppress dissenting views even with the best of intentions is a slippery slope. Democracy works not by suppression, but by the majority (hopefully) coming to a reasonable conclusion about any given best course of action. This translates to our habits of news and opinion consumption too. I would hope that the majority of people - the 'mainstream' if you like - would feel that opinions such as in the article above or printed daily in the right-wing press were unacceptable, and would choose not to consume news and opinion from such sources.
However the situation behind the publication of divisive rhetoric is extremely murky, and concerns the outsized effect that one powerful individual can have upon conversations of national if not international importance. The goalposts are being moved. This isn't conspiracy-theory wishful thinking: Rupert Murdoch is widely credited with sealing the Blair and Cameron election victories for example.
Opinions such as that of the author have only gained prominence in the last twenty years at most. Prior to this, his disgusting rhetoric would have been confined to the grotty pages of some hate group magazine, where they wouldn't do much harm.
But nowadays, children daily see headlines and news pieces screaming about the dangers of immigration. What effect does this mass consumption of low-level hate provide? It shifts the paradigm, allowing the fostering of racist and discriminatory views in young people, and further alienating anyone of different heritage.
My solution? That the public are made increasingly aware of this paradigm shift, and that every day, normal people speak out against it. It's not acceptable - but it doesn't need banning. It needs chasing back into the dirt from which it emerged.
> I can't control how people interpret your postings, we all have to consider how what we write can be interpreted. Or not, you don't have to if you don't want.
No, you can't and of course it's not your responsibility to manage how people interpret others' posts. But it is the responsibility of participants to a debate, if they feel a particular point of view is being inferred, to ask for clarification.
However you did, unlike many, at least open debate with me on this issue, rather than leaping to unreasonable conclusions such as:
> Oh, so you want to censor him, gag him even, for having a different opinion to you. Burnt any good books recently?
You said:
> Then as a society we reject the generation (publication) of views and opinions that the majority disapprove of? But they have to be published before we can disapprove of them, so where does that leave us? Does no-platforming help change views or is it an extra element of control?
It's an important and interesting point, which is central to my thinking on the issue. I think it's vital that legal avenues exist for the publication of any viewpoint. It is a democratic right that everyone is entitled to their opinions; to suppress dissenting views even with the best of intentions is a slippery slope. Democracy works not by suppression, but by the majority (hopefully) coming to a reasonable conclusion about any given best course of action. This translates to our habits of news and opinion consumption too. I would hope that the majority of people - the 'mainstream' if you like - would feel that opinions such as in the article above or printed daily in the right-wing press were unacceptable, and would choose not to consume news and opinion from such sources.
However the situation behind the publication of divisive rhetoric is extremely murky, and concerns the outsized effect that one powerful individual can have upon conversations of national if not international importance. The goalposts are being moved. This isn't conspiracy-theory wishful thinking: Rupert Murdoch is widely credited with sealing the Blair and Cameron election victories for example.
Opinions such as that of the author have only gained prominence in the last twenty years at most. Prior to this, his disgusting rhetoric would have been confined to the grotty pages of some hate group magazine, where they wouldn't do much harm.
But nowadays, children daily see headlines and news pieces screaming about the dangers of immigration. What effect does this mass consumption of low-level hate provide? It shifts the paradigm, allowing the fostering of racist and discriminatory views in young people, and further alienating anyone of different heritage.
My solution? That the public are made increasingly aware of this paradigm shift, and that every day, normal people speak out against it. It's not acceptable - but it doesn't need banning. It needs chasing back into the dirt from which it emerged.
Post edited at 13:11
1
2
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I'm not sure how this is going to work when (as I pointed out above) the most popular print and online newspapers are the Sun and The Daily Mail, throw in the Telegraph and the Express and you are really up against it. Then there is the internet and social media to contend with.
You mention that opinions such as (this author) " disgusting rhetoric " have gained prominence over the last 20 years and is shifting the paradigm. I think you are missing the point. This type of prominence you have witnessed is a symptom of what's happening to our societies over the last 20 + years (globalisation/immigration/political correctness/EU etc). Trying to "speak out against it" is useless when the conditions for it's value as a "mainstream" opinion are left untouched.
The thing is, I suspect you are not that effected or bothered by immigration of Muslims into the UK, you are probably very liberal, open minded and if a large Mosque was built at the end of your street you would embrace it and try to learn more about the religion, possibly visiting the imam etc. If that's the case, good for you but I suspect you are probably in the minority, and as such....a lot of newspapers will ignore you and disagree with you . So I think you have your work cut out, in fact I suspect you will be flogging a dead horse. That's not to say you shouldn't speak out though....
I'm not sure how this is going to work when (as I pointed out above) the most popular print and online newspapers are the Sun and The Daily Mail, throw in the Telegraph and the Express and you are really up against it. Then there is the internet and social media to contend with.
You mention that opinions such as (this author) " disgusting rhetoric " have gained prominence over the last 20 years and is shifting the paradigm. I think you are missing the point. This type of prominence you have witnessed is a symptom of what's happening to our societies over the last 20 + years (globalisation/immigration/political correctness/EU etc). Trying to "speak out against it" is useless when the conditions for it's value as a "mainstream" opinion are left untouched.
The thing is, I suspect you are not that effected or bothered by immigration of Muslims into the UK, you are probably very liberal, open minded and if a large Mosque was built at the end of your street you would embrace it and try to learn more about the religion, possibly visiting the imam etc. If that's the case, good for you but I suspect you are probably in the minority, and as such....a lot of newspapers will ignore you and disagree with you . So I think you have your work cut out, in fact I suspect you will be flogging a dead horse. That's not to say you shouldn't speak out though....
5
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Do you know, I agree very much. Our country's economic situation has changed radically, and successive Governments through the last 20+ years have allowed insidious destruction of the very institutions which led us to become a world-leading example of secular progressive democracy. All of the key systems our society depends upon from transport to justice have been steadily undermined by privatisation, cuts and the concept of a 'free market'. In my belief, institutions which have genuine national importance, should be administered and under the control of the state.
My point is that the two phenomena are not unconnected. Powerful corporate lobbyists are very close indeed to Government, and have been for a long time. Look what Murdoch did to Major: one note of dissent and he was f*cked. Look how the entire NoTW saga and phone hacking unfolded: heads should have rolled there. The very entities driving this divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, are the very entities which stand to benefit from a more fractured, commercialised, privatised, and selfish society.
> You mention that opinions such as (this author) " disgusting rhetoric " have gained prominence over the last 20 years and is shifting the paradigm. I think you are missing the point. This type of prominence you have witnessed is a symptom of what's happening to our societies over the last 20 + years (globalisation/immigration/political correctness/EU etc). Trying to "speak out against it" is useless when the conditions for it's value as a "mainstream" opinion are left untouched.
Do you know, I agree very much. Our country's economic situation has changed radically, and successive Governments through the last 20+ years have allowed insidious destruction of the very institutions which led us to become a world-leading example of secular progressive democracy. All of the key systems our society depends upon from transport to justice have been steadily undermined by privatisation, cuts and the concept of a 'free market'. In my belief, institutions which have genuine national importance, should be administered and under the control of the state.
My point is that the two phenomena are not unconnected. Powerful corporate lobbyists are very close indeed to Government, and have been for a long time. Look what Murdoch did to Major: one note of dissent and he was f*cked. Look how the entire NoTW saga and phone hacking unfolded: heads should have rolled there. The very entities driving this divisive and inflammatory rhetoric, are the very entities which stand to benefit from a more fractured, commercialised, privatised, and selfish society.
Post edited at 15:00
3
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
This.
> idiots and arseholes are everywhere, across all groups and religion.
This.
1
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I agree with this, but I wonder if we are straying from the crux of the original point - immigration. This is the issue that resonates with large swathes of the country. Farage wouldn't have got his way if his main gripe was Apple and Amazon paying minimal tax in the UK and zero hour contracts at Sports Direct.
Even in the EU, this issue has become a ticking time bomb. Barely lip service paid to schengen by some countries, lack of collaboration when agreeing to allow a million refugees in to Germany (obviously the terrorist incidents which need no more mention) The failure to integrate in any meaningful/positive way (as Merkel has publicly admitted amongst others) and the feeling that our representatives (politicians) are no longer protecting our interests and are more interested in allowing foreigners in (as cheap labour for the lobbying corporates?) Perceived cover ups by police/councils in UK and abroad when unsavoury things happen in these communities which breeds more resentment through implication of special treatment etc. etc. etc. I'ts all a mess and the perfect breeding ground for this type of journalist (the aussie chap) to talk his talk.
Personally I see it very simplistically, a swinging pendulum. Its been left (or central depending on your place on the spectrum) and that creates conditions for it to swing right (and back and forth it goes) . I'm sure many on here will disagree with this and i'm cool with that, it's just my facile way of trying to understand a very complex issue which I have no answers to.
I agree with this, but I wonder if we are straying from the crux of the original point - immigration. This is the issue that resonates with large swathes of the country. Farage wouldn't have got his way if his main gripe was Apple and Amazon paying minimal tax in the UK and zero hour contracts at Sports Direct.
Even in the EU, this issue has become a ticking time bomb. Barely lip service paid to schengen by some countries, lack of collaboration when agreeing to allow a million refugees in to Germany (obviously the terrorist incidents which need no more mention) The failure to integrate in any meaningful/positive way (as Merkel has publicly admitted amongst others) and the feeling that our representatives (politicians) are no longer protecting our interests and are more interested in allowing foreigners in (as cheap labour for the lobbying corporates?) Perceived cover ups by police/councils in UK and abroad when unsavoury things happen in these communities which breeds more resentment through implication of special treatment etc. etc. etc. I'ts all a mess and the perfect breeding ground for this type of journalist (the aussie chap) to talk his talk.
Personally I see it very simplistically, a swinging pendulum. Its been left (or central depending on your place on the spectrum) and that creates conditions for it to swing right (and back and forth it goes) . I'm sure many on here will disagree with this and i'm cool with that, it's just my facile way of trying to understand a very complex issue which I have no answers to.
4
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
My point precisely. The deteriorating economic circumstances of nearly everyone in the UK are plain to see, but their causes are not simplistic i.e. 'the EU' 'immigration'.
Government is failing in its responsibility to explain this, for the simple reason that it is complicit in the economic degeneration / regression of our nation, and the simultaneous denial of opportunity to the 'have-nots'. My position isn't partisan on this: Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have all been guilty of allowing the slow carve-up of our most treasured institutions and ideals. And phenomena such as tax avoidance and zero-hours contracts are very much part of the problem.
Edited to add - simplistic was not a referral to your pendulum analogy, which is a good way to describe periodic political shifts.
> I agree with this, but I wonder if we are straying from the crux of the original point - immigration. This is the issue that resonates with large swathes of the country. Farage wouldn't have got his way if his main gripe was Apple and Amazon paying minimal tax in the UK and zero hour contracts at Sports Direct.
My point precisely. The deteriorating economic circumstances of nearly everyone in the UK are plain to see, but their causes are not simplistic i.e. 'the EU' 'immigration'.
Government is failing in its responsibility to explain this, for the simple reason that it is complicit in the economic degeneration / regression of our nation, and the simultaneous denial of opportunity to the 'have-nots'. My position isn't partisan on this: Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have all been guilty of allowing the slow carve-up of our most treasured institutions and ideals. And phenomena such as tax avoidance and zero-hours contracts are very much part of the problem.
Edited to add - simplistic was not a referral to your pendulum analogy, which is a good way to describe periodic political shifts.
Post edited at 16:01
2
1
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
The suspect at the moment wasn't a refugee, he was from Tunisia which if I remember rightly was a French colony.
The rest of your post I agree with.
The suspect at the moment wasn't a refugee, he was from Tunisia which if I remember rightly was a French colony.
The rest of your post I agree with.
Post edited at 16:03
1
In reply to marsbar:
How does that mean he can't be a refugee?
> which if I remember rightly was a French colony.
How does that mean he can't be a refugee?
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Some good points there, which appear at last, to be going for the head of the serpent. I also agree that there has been what appears to be a systematic denegration of social institutions within the UK.
As I pointed out somewhere, the "mainstream", IMO, do not seem to have much of a personal philosophy. They are quite happy to go along with whoever is making the best arguments at the time. In 1997 it was Blair, in 2008 it was Obama, in 2016 it was BoJo, Farage and Trump. (I have noticed, whilst looking something up, that Bjartur i Sumarhus has alluded to something like this in a post written whilst I'm writing this - pendulum swing etc).
In this country you are quite right to say that the Murdoch press has a massive influence. There's not many I would say this about, but I will rejoice when that bastard dies, as I did when the mother of our self serving political elite died and when Obama had that mad mullah shot in the face. All three of them are or were conjurers of hatred, Thatcher perhaps not deliberately, but with the other two there can be no denial.
However, as I have tried to explain, I feel I am positioned at the left side of centre and perhaps more of a Libertarian than a liberal. I personally feel that as long as the bounds of decency are not crossed (and by that I mean direct racism or sexism or whatever ism) I don't think we can just scream "shut up" at people who have every right to free speech, the same as you have. I actually welcome pieces like the one about which you started this thread. There may well be racist undertones to this piece, but then it gives us the opportunity to discuss these issues. As Sir Chasm intimated, it would be very dull if you agreed with everyone.
Bjantur I Sumarhus does indeed make some good points, but I don't agree with the "flogging the dead horse" statement. It is through what appears to be banging your head against a brick wall that you eventually formulate change and that is why it is essential that you communicate your truth. Now this truth may be a load of horseshit, but it still has value in that it adds to the debate and will get others to espouse their beliefs, which will get others to , , , , , , and so on.
If you have time, you should listen to the Jordan Peterson conversation with Gad Saad that I have posted on this thread. Peterson explains that there are two extremes of psychological existence. At one end there is suffering and at the other there is boredom. Suffering can be viewed as complete chaos and boredom as complete order. The ideal place to be in centre of these two extremes, with one foot in chaos and one foot in order. That is the best way to develop yourself and society by continually learning from each other and is perfectly encapsulated by this quote (he says it so much better than me):
". . . . . the highest calling of every individual is to utter their articulated truth in a manner that keeps chaos and order properly balanced."
Some good points there, which appear at last, to be going for the head of the serpent. I also agree that there has been what appears to be a systematic denegration of social institutions within the UK.
As I pointed out somewhere, the "mainstream", IMO, do not seem to have much of a personal philosophy. They are quite happy to go along with whoever is making the best arguments at the time. In 1997 it was Blair, in 2008 it was Obama, in 2016 it was BoJo, Farage and Trump. (I have noticed, whilst looking something up, that Bjartur i Sumarhus has alluded to something like this in a post written whilst I'm writing this - pendulum swing etc).
In this country you are quite right to say that the Murdoch press has a massive influence. There's not many I would say this about, but I will rejoice when that bastard dies, as I did when the mother of our self serving political elite died and when Obama had that mad mullah shot in the face. All three of them are or were conjurers of hatred, Thatcher perhaps not deliberately, but with the other two there can be no denial.
However, as I have tried to explain, I feel I am positioned at the left side of centre and perhaps more of a Libertarian than a liberal. I personally feel that as long as the bounds of decency are not crossed (and by that I mean direct racism or sexism or whatever ism) I don't think we can just scream "shut up" at people who have every right to free speech, the same as you have. I actually welcome pieces like the one about which you started this thread. There may well be racist undertones to this piece, but then it gives us the opportunity to discuss these issues. As Sir Chasm intimated, it would be very dull if you agreed with everyone.
Bjantur I Sumarhus does indeed make some good points, but I don't agree with the "flogging the dead horse" statement. It is through what appears to be banging your head against a brick wall that you eventually formulate change and that is why it is essential that you communicate your truth. Now this truth may be a load of horseshit, but it still has value in that it adds to the debate and will get others to espouse their beliefs, which will get others to , , , , , , and so on.
If you have time, you should listen to the Jordan Peterson conversation with Gad Saad that I have posted on this thread. Peterson explains that there are two extremes of psychological existence. At one end there is suffering and at the other there is boredom. Suffering can be viewed as complete chaos and boredom as complete order. The ideal place to be in centre of these two extremes, with one foot in chaos and one foot in order. That is the best way to develop yourself and society by continually learning from each other and is perfectly encapsulated by this quote (he says it so much better than me):
". . . . . the highest calling of every individual is to utter their articulated truth in a manner that keeps chaos and order properly balanced."
Post edited at 16:25
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Somewhat playing Devil's Advocat here, but perhaps this is a necessary adjustment due to globalisation and the spreading of the wealth, which may be no bad thing. However, what pisses me off is that those who are at the top are becoming richer for it.
> My point precisely. The deteriorating economic circumstances of nearly everyone in the UK are plain to see, but their causes are not simplistic i.e. 'the EU' 'immigration'.
Somewhat playing Devil's Advocat here, but perhaps this is a necessary adjustment due to globalisation and the spreading of the wealth, which may be no bad thing. However, what pisses me off is that those who are at the top are becoming richer for it.
Post edited at 16:27
1
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
A couple of points:
The public are already well aware of the paradigm shift. They are not idiots.
Second, the increase in inflammatory rhetoric of the sort that you point to is largely a reaction to politicians deciding to admit millions of immigrants from the world's trouble spots without really asking whether this is a good idea and without asking for democratic consent.
Third, your language, such as the phrase "normal people" (which dehumanises and labels as abnormal people who disagree) is just as bad as anything in the newspaper article you started the thread about.
Then, let's distinguish between the book excerpt (which does seem worse) and the Australian newspaper article, which is the thing in a mainstream outlet. I'm not sure what it is you object to in the article -- though it is indeed written in a provocative style. But then so are many of your comments.
The central point of that article seems to be that some fraction of the recent immigrants are likely to be dangerous extremists, and thus the author is querying the wisdom of admitting large numbers of immigrants. Are you saying that wanting to have that discussion is extremist and unacceptable? If not, what is it about the article that you consider unacceptable? Maybe the reason that inflammatory writers are writing as they do is because the more moderate mainstream is shying away from asking such questions.
Lastly, out of interest, would you consider Douglas Murray's two articles on this on the right side of acceptability by "normal people" or not?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/go-time-je-suis-berlin/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/predictable-muslim-good-news-stories-a...
> My solution? That the public are made increasingly aware of this paradigm shift, and that every day, normal people speak out against it. It's not acceptable ...
A couple of points:
The public are already well aware of the paradigm shift. They are not idiots.
Second, the increase in inflammatory rhetoric of the sort that you point to is largely a reaction to politicians deciding to admit millions of immigrants from the world's trouble spots without really asking whether this is a good idea and without asking for democratic consent.
Third, your language, such as the phrase "normal people" (which dehumanises and labels as abnormal people who disagree) is just as bad as anything in the newspaper article you started the thread about.
Then, let's distinguish between the book excerpt (which does seem worse) and the Australian newspaper article, which is the thing in a mainstream outlet. I'm not sure what it is you object to in the article -- though it is indeed written in a provocative style. But then so are many of your comments.
The central point of that article seems to be that some fraction of the recent immigrants are likely to be dangerous extremists, and thus the author is querying the wisdom of admitting large numbers of immigrants. Are you saying that wanting to have that discussion is extremist and unacceptable? If not, what is it about the article that you consider unacceptable? Maybe the reason that inflammatory writers are writing as they do is because the more moderate mainstream is shying away from asking such questions.
Lastly, out of interest, would you consider Douglas Murray's two articles on this on the right side of acceptability by "normal people" or not?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/go-time-je-suis-berlin/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/12/predictable-muslim-good-news-stories-a...
7
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
The first article is subscription only. The second article made my browser crash.
But not before I had read it. It's perfectly OK in my opinion and some good points raised (if slightly ruined by his support of The Nige). But as I pointed out above, I find any opinion within the bounds of decency to be enlightening in some form or other, even if it only strengthens my opposition to the content.
> Lastly, out of interest, would you consider Douglas Murray's two articles on this on the right side of acceptability by "normal people" or not?
The first article is subscription only. The second article made my browser crash.
But not before I had read it. It's perfectly OK in my opinion and some good points raised (if slightly ruined by his support of The Nige). But as I pointed out above, I find any opinion within the bounds of decency to be enlightening in some form or other, even if it only strengthens my opposition to the content.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Personally, (and I'm quite prepared to take flak for this), I believe you are overestimating the intelligence of millions of people. It is possible the friends you choose and the people you work with may in no way inform you of the general level of intelligence of great swaithes of the British public. Take this forum for example, I believe, despite what others proclaim, that this forum has an oversubscription of intelligent posters. My wife was a teacher and has fairly intelligent friends that she has met as a result. I have worked in engineering or building most of my life and I can attest to the level of ignorance of many people, a far bigger majority than intellectuals I have met even in higher levels of management. The amount of people who look at pictures in The Sun or The Mail and read the few words underneath before turning to the celebrity pages or the sport pages is depressing. Those people are also likely to be married to similar people, have similar children and similar friends. My friends do not come from those I have met in the workplace, but rather through climbing and other social situations.
> The public are already well aware of the paradigm shift. They are not idiots.
Personally, (and I'm quite prepared to take flak for this), I believe you are overestimating the intelligence of millions of people. It is possible the friends you choose and the people you work with may in no way inform you of the general level of intelligence of great swaithes of the British public. Take this forum for example, I believe, despite what others proclaim, that this forum has an oversubscription of intelligent posters. My wife was a teacher and has fairly intelligent friends that she has met as a result. I have worked in engineering or building most of my life and I can attest to the level of ignorance of many people, a far bigger majority than intellectuals I have met even in higher levels of management. The amount of people who look at pictures in The Sun or The Mail and read the few words underneath before turning to the celebrity pages or the sport pages is depressing. Those people are also likely to be married to similar people, have similar children and similar friends. My friends do not come from those I have met in the workplace, but rather through climbing and other social situations.
1
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Is it? What basis do you have for this contentious point of view? Can you provide some evidence for this unsubstantiated statement?
Further, are you dismissing out of hand the well-documented connections between owners of the outlets pushing this hateful material, Government, and business?
That's an utterly ridiculous thing to say.
How have I failed to distinguish between them? You make me laugh, Coel. Re-read the OP, I distinguish between the two perfectly clearly.
You've answered your own question here.
Comments I'm happy to stand by, and provide evidence for when appropriate.
*sighs* No, Coel. please re-read the entire thread: on numerous occasions I reiterate the need for sensible discussion on this topic, but you (and others) completely fail to reply to or even acknowledge my statements. Why?
For examples, see my reply to YOU on this exact question at 1259 yesterday, or my reply to Tom in Edinburgh at 1057 today. Wow.
Because, as you concur, it's 'provocative', Coel. It's hateful. It's divisive.
I've outlined my objection to the article very clearly, again a number of times. What's with the constant repetition of the same questions? Reasonable answers have been given, often before you asked.
Maybe. or maybe they're just being allowed and encouraged to get away with it, and like any emboldened bigot are gradually sliding more and more of their pernicious opinion into plain view. It requires deep condemnation from normal, or to avoid offending you I should perhaps say, ordinary people.
> the increase in inflammatory rhetoric of the sort that you point to is largely a reaction to politicians deciding to admit millions of immigrants from the world's trouble spots without really asking whether this is a good idea and without asking for democratic consent.
Is it? What basis do you have for this contentious point of view? Can you provide some evidence for this unsubstantiated statement?
Further, are you dismissing out of hand the well-documented connections between owners of the outlets pushing this hateful material, Government, and business?
> Third, your language, such as the phrase "normal people" (which dehumanises and labels as abnormal people who disagree) is just as bad as anything in the newspaper article you started the thread about.
That's an utterly ridiculous thing to say.
> Then, let's distinguish between the book excerpt (which does seem worse) and the Australian newspaper article, which is the thing in a mainstream outlet.
How have I failed to distinguish between them? You make me laugh, Coel. Re-read the OP, I distinguish between the two perfectly clearly.
> I'm not sure what it is you object to in the article -- though it is indeed written in a provocative style.
You've answered your own question here.
> But then so are many of your comments.
Comments I'm happy to stand by, and provide evidence for when appropriate.
> The central point of that article seems to be that some fraction of the recent immigrants are likely to be dangerous extremists, and thus the author is querying the wisdom of admitting large numbers of immigrants.
> Are you saying that wanting to have that discussion is extremist and unacceptable?
*sighs* No, Coel. please re-read the entire thread: on numerous occasions I reiterate the need for sensible discussion on this topic, but you (and others) completely fail to reply to or even acknowledge my statements. Why?
For examples, see my reply to YOU on this exact question at 1259 yesterday, or my reply to Tom in Edinburgh at 1057 today. Wow.
> If not, what is it about the article that you consider unacceptable?
Because, as you concur, it's 'provocative', Coel. It's hateful. It's divisive.
I've outlined my objection to the article very clearly, again a number of times. What's with the constant repetition of the same questions? Reasonable answers have been given, often before you asked.
> Maybe the reason that inflammatory writers are writing as they do is because the more moderate mainstream is shying away from asking such questions.
Maybe. or maybe they're just being allowed and encouraged to get away with it, and like any emboldened bigot are gradually sliding more and more of their pernicious opinion into plain view. It requires deep condemnation from normal, or to avoid offending you I should perhaps say, ordinary people.
3
In reply to MG:
It doesn't mean he can't be, but he wasn't. He was supposed to be being deported.
However Tunisia is generally taking refugees at the moment not sending them.
It doesn't mean he can't be, but he wasn't. He was supposed to be being deported.
However Tunisia is generally taking refugees at the moment not sending them.
Post edited at 17:32
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
As opposed to unordinary people?
> It requires deep condemnation from normal, or to avoid offending you I should perhaps say, ordinary people.
As opposed to unordinary people?
Post edited at 17:49
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
On a more serious note, you need to take the views of others in hand, accept them and formulate reasonable arguments for or against them instead of dismissing them out of hand. You kind of hint at this in your last paragraph, but I have to take exception to the "deep condemnation" statement. Seriously challenge, yes, if that is your opinion. Deeply condemn, no, that is the road to totalitarianism.
On a more serious note, you need to take the views of others in hand, accept them and formulate reasonable arguments for or against them instead of dismissing them out of hand. You kind of hint at this in your last paragraph, but I have to take exception to the "deep condemnation" statement. Seriously challenge, yes, if that is your opinion. Deeply condemn, no, that is the road to totalitarianism.
Post edited at 17:45
1
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
You say in the OP this is a "mainstream" news sources but don't post a link or even name it. Where was it?
You say in the OP this is a "mainstream" news sources but don't post a link or even name it. Where was it?
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Isn't the point that calling for a civil war and for a "cull" of muslims going well beyond discussion and in fact incitement to genocide? It is not clear from the OPs posts where this comes from. The first post contains an oddly unattributed quote and later there is an entirely different quote, apparently from a newspaper. Perhaps he will clarify.
> Are you saying that wanting to have that discussion is extremist and unacceptable?
Isn't the point that calling for a civil war and for a "cull" of muslims going well beyond discussion and in fact incitement to genocide? It is not clear from the OPs posts where this comes from. The first post contains an oddly unattributed quote and later there is an entirely different quote, apparently from a newspaper. Perhaps he will clarify.
Post edited at 17:57
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I think that some of your comments are getting too far into conspiracy theories. That one, coupled with comments such as:
"... successive Governments through the last 20+ years have allowed insidious destruction of the very institutions which led us to become a world-leading example of secular progressive democracy. All of the key systems our society depends upon from transport to justice have been steadily undermined ..."
Well hold on. I agree that it's written in a provocative style. Quite often journalists of all sorts do that. But then you leap to it being "hateful" without any argument at all. You say that you accept that the questions he's asking are fair ones. If they are it's hard to see the article as "hateful".
> Further, are you dismissing out of hand the well-documented connections between owners of the outlets pushing this hateful material, Government, and business?
I think that some of your comments are getting too far into conspiracy theories. That one, coupled with comments such as:
"... successive Governments through the last 20+ years have allowed insidious destruction of the very institutions which led us to become a world-leading example of secular progressive democracy. All of the key systems our society depends upon from transport to justice have been steadily undermined ..."
> Because, as you concur, it's 'provocative', Coel. It's hateful. It's divisive.
Well hold on. I agree that it's written in a provocative style. Quite often journalists of all sorts do that. But then you leap to it being "hateful" without any argument at all. You say that you accept that the questions he's asking are fair ones. If they are it's hard to see the article as "hateful".
2
1
In reply to MG:
That was explicitly after my statement: "Then, let's distinguish between the book excerpt (which does seem worse) and the Australian newspaper article, which is the thing in a mainstream outlet." The rest of my comment was specifically about the newspaper article.
The OP contains a quote from a book. That is not what my comment was about. A few comments later there is the full article from a mainstream Australian newspaper.
> Isn't the point that calling for a civil war and for a "cull" of muslims going well beyond discussion and in fact incitement to genocide?
That was explicitly after my statement: "Then, let's distinguish between the book excerpt (which does seem worse) and the Australian newspaper article, which is the thing in a mainstream outlet." The rest of my comment was specifically about the newspaper article.
> It is not clear from the OPs posts where this comes from.
The OP contains a quote from a book. That is not what my comment was about. A few comments later there is the full article from a mainstream Australian newspaper.
1
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
The OP says it's a newspaper.
> The OP contains a quote from a book. That is not what my comment was about. A few comments later there is the full article from a mainstream Australian newspaper.
The OP says it's a newspaper.
1
In reply to MG:
I don't really want to return to the first part of this discussion again, it's been done to death and has somewhat moved on to the more general issue of free speech.
But I don't actually see that the author is "calling" for what you suggest, but rather giving a warning that this could be the likely consequences. I would also suggest that it is not clear whether this is something the author actually wants or not.
I think in thread there are indications as to the source, both of the outlet and the author, but I'm not really interested in that, it is the discussion around it that is the main focus for me.
> Isn't the point that calling for a civil war and for a "cull" of muslims going well beyond discussion and in fact incitement to genocide?
I don't really want to return to the first part of this discussion again, it's been done to death and has somewhat moved on to the more general issue of free speech.
But I don't actually see that the author is "calling" for what you suggest, but rather giving a warning that this could be the likely consequences. I would also suggest that it is not clear whether this is something the author actually wants or not.
I think in thread there are indications as to the source, both of the outlet and the author, but I'm not really interested in that, it is the discussion around it that is the main focus for me.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
When reading any opinion piece, it's wise to research the background of the author. I do this with writers of all political stripes, and it's amazing (and sometimes shocking) to see the connections and the agendas being pushed - both on Left and Right. In regard to the article I quote above (like Paddy I couldn't access the first), people may wish to research the writer's connections as this may provide some illumination on his agenda. In regard to the points he makes as factual statements, he's mostly correct. But anyone wanting real data as opposed to opinion massage would do well to closely examine the Europol TE-SAT report for 2015. It's an excellent, comprehensive and thoroughly unbiased report.
The problem is not "a wholly inadequate level of suspicion – or even interest – on the part of Europe’s elites". The problem is multifactorial. As TE-SAT acknowledges, the Middle East calamity plays a huge part; as does poorly-managed integration in some areas of the UK, as does economic disadvantage, as does the increasing under-funding of key systems of effective governance. Who is responsible for this? As the arguably 'superior' society, should we not first be looking at what we've done wrong? For instance a unilateral and possibly illegal war (by us and the Americans) and the subsequent continuation and exacerbation of instability in the region (by the Russians and Iranians)?
I want to type the following in bold shining capitals:
***My definition of responsibility is neither acceptance of blame, nor justification, for terrorist atrocities.*** When you're talking about terror groups, you're talking about a level of self-entitlement which as well as being deeply violent, is also utterly immature and unrealistic. Our society is better than that. You can't cure stupid except via education, so our mission should be to examine and correct oour own faults in creating the situation, and address the imbalances present in our own systems of governance in order that we can offer people the greatest chances to integrate and develop in our society, as well as effective deterrence and punishment for malicious acts.
Again, we are better than that, and the agenda being pushed by your writer seems close on the spectrum to the article I linked, although not nearly as explicit or sinister. Even so, the inference from both articles is that immature and unrealistic 'solutions' are the only answer.
> Lastly, out of interest, would you consider Douglas Murray's two articles on this on the right side of acceptability by "normal people" or not?
When reading any opinion piece, it's wise to research the background of the author. I do this with writers of all political stripes, and it's amazing (and sometimes shocking) to see the connections and the agendas being pushed - both on Left and Right. In regard to the article I quote above (like Paddy I couldn't access the first), people may wish to research the writer's connections as this may provide some illumination on his agenda. In regard to the points he makes as factual statements, he's mostly correct. But anyone wanting real data as opposed to opinion massage would do well to closely examine the Europol TE-SAT report for 2015. It's an excellent, comprehensive and thoroughly unbiased report.
The problem is not "a wholly inadequate level of suspicion – or even interest – on the part of Europe’s elites". The problem is multifactorial. As TE-SAT acknowledges, the Middle East calamity plays a huge part; as does poorly-managed integration in some areas of the UK, as does economic disadvantage, as does the increasing under-funding of key systems of effective governance. Who is responsible for this? As the arguably 'superior' society, should we not first be looking at what we've done wrong? For instance a unilateral and possibly illegal war (by us and the Americans) and the subsequent continuation and exacerbation of instability in the region (by the Russians and Iranians)?
I want to type the following in bold shining capitals:
***My definition of responsibility is neither acceptance of blame, nor justification, for terrorist atrocities.*** When you're talking about terror groups, you're talking about a level of self-entitlement which as well as being deeply violent, is also utterly immature and unrealistic. Our society is better than that. You can't cure stupid except via education, so our mission should be to examine and correct oour own faults in creating the situation, and address the imbalances present in our own systems of governance in order that we can offer people the greatest chances to integrate and develop in our society, as well as effective deterrence and punishment for malicious acts.
Again, we are better than that, and the agenda being pushed by your writer seems close on the spectrum to the article I linked, although not nearly as explicit or sinister. Even so, the inference from both articles is that immature and unrealistic 'solutions' are the only answer.
1
In reply to Hugh J:
The OP is about whether putting this stuff in newspapers is acceptable so the source is central to everything. If you aren't interested, don't reply!
The OP is about whether putting this stuff in newspapers is acceptable so the source is central to everything. If you aren't interested, don't reply!
1
In reply to Hugh J:
If you really cant see that you being blind, and probably miss a lot of other meaning and implication in other writing and articles
> But I don't actually see that the author is "calling" for what you suggest, but rather giving a warning that this could be the likely consequences. I would also suggest that it is not clear whether this is something the author actually wants or not.
If you really cant see that you being blind, and probably miss a lot of other meaning and implication in other writing and articles
Post edited at 18:07
1
1
In reply to MG:
To be clear, folks: The OP originally contained a link to Steyn's recent Herald Sun article. But when Trangia pointed out it didn't work, I saw the sense of providing a full transcript, and took the opportunity to remove the link to the host site.
The quote "Why did Bosnia..." does indeed come from the same author's book America Alone, published 2007. As I state in the OP, after providing the now-removed link:
The quote from the book is pertinent, as it illustrates Steyn's thinking and his agenda. Apologies for the confusion generated.
> The OP contains a quote from a book. That is not what my comment was about. A few comments later there is the full article from a mainstream Australian newspaper.
> The OP says it's a newspaper.
To be clear, folks: The OP originally contained a link to Steyn's recent Herald Sun article. But when Trangia pointed out it didn't work, I saw the sense of providing a full transcript, and took the opportunity to remove the link to the host site.
The quote "Why did Bosnia..." does indeed come from the same author's book America Alone, published 2007. As I state in the OP, after providing the now-removed link:
> According to Wiki, this same guy has said things such as:
> "Why did Bosnia..."
The quote from the book is pertinent, as it illustrates Steyn's thinking and his agenda. Apologies for the confusion generated.
Post edited at 18:13
1
In reply to MG:
This has been covered, please see my reply to WBO.
> You say in the OP this is a "mainstream" news sources but don't post a link or even name it. Where was it?
This has been covered, please see my reply to WBO.
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
So the "cull" bit has never appeared in a newspaper? Your OP doesn't make much sense if so, but anyway.
So the "cull" bit has never appeared in a newspaper? Your OP doesn't make much sense if so, but anyway.
In reply to MG:
OOOO . . . . check out your perceived offense!
> The OP is about whether putting this stuff in newspapers is acceptable so the source is central to everything. If you aren't interested, don't reply!
OOOO . . . . check out your perceived offense!
Post edited at 18:13
In reply to MG:
No, I thought I'd made that clear. Again, sorry for causing confusion.
My entire point in this thread is that we are now allowing people who blatantly espouse such views to write low-level hate speech in mainstream press. Gutter opinions such as Steyn's would have been consigned to their rightful place 20 years ago; the whole point is that he's written a thoroughly ordinary low-level racist piece, while at the same time holding the most vicious of views on the likely end to Europe's 'Muslim problem': not only holding that opinion but disseminating it leveraging his protected status as a mouthpiece for a pretty hateful media entity. An entity which itself happens to be linked at the highest levels to international Government and business.
> So the "cull" bit has never appeared in a newspaper?
No, I thought I'd made that clear. Again, sorry for causing confusion.
> Your OP doesn't make much sense if so, but anyway.
My entire point in this thread is that we are now allowing people who blatantly espouse such views to write low-level hate speech in mainstream press. Gutter opinions such as Steyn's would have been consigned to their rightful place 20 years ago; the whole point is that he's written a thoroughly ordinary low-level racist piece, while at the same time holding the most vicious of views on the likely end to Europe's 'Muslim problem': not only holding that opinion but disseminating it leveraging his protected status as a mouthpiece for a pretty hateful media entity. An entity which itself happens to be linked at the highest levels to international Government and business.
2
In reply to MG:
I will reiterate. There is nothing that is directly racist in the content that has been posted here. If someone has strong enough opinions that they feel it necessary to articulate THEIR truth, without crossing the bounds of decency, we have an obligation to listen to them, take it on board and formulate our replies for or against their arguments. Personally, I disagree with much of what the author has written, but it is plainly within the bounds of decency and I will defend his right to say it to the last. If you percieve the undertones that you suggest then that is your problem and just writing off the opinions of others without careful consideration to what the author is trying to convey is firstly, your loss and secondly an attack on the freedom of speech. This will lead to totalitarianism and be preceeded by emabrrassments such as this:
youtube.com/watch?v=HAlPjMiaKdw&
> If you really cant see that you being blind, and probably miss a lot of other meaning and implication in other writing and articles
I will reiterate. There is nothing that is directly racist in the content that has been posted here. If someone has strong enough opinions that they feel it necessary to articulate THEIR truth, without crossing the bounds of decency, we have an obligation to listen to them, take it on board and formulate our replies for or against their arguments. Personally, I disagree with much of what the author has written, but it is plainly within the bounds of decency and I will defend his right to say it to the last. If you percieve the undertones that you suggest then that is your problem and just writing off the opinions of others without careful consideration to what the author is trying to convey is firstly, your loss and secondly an attack on the freedom of speech. This will lead to totalitarianism and be preceeded by emabrrassments such as this:
youtube.com/watch?v=HAlPjMiaKdw&
1
In reply to Hugh J:
So at what degree of intelligence precisely, do you deem peoples opinions unworthy?
> I believe you are overestimating the intelligence of millions of people. It is possible the friends you choose and the people you work with may in no way inform you of the general level of intelligence of great swaithes of the British public.
So at what degree of intelligence precisely, do you deem peoples opinions unworthy?
3
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I think you are worrying about the wrong things, really. Openly held and expressed opinion can be challenged and rebutted, given access to reliable facts and data. The problem we have now is facts are no longer clear, we have seen this with Trump most recently but Putin's propaganda chief is on record as saying there is no way of telling truth anymore, and using this situation for example in the Ukraine to confuse the record. "Fake news" is the latest incarnation of this trend. We need reliable gatekeepers.
I think you are worrying about the wrong things, really. Openly held and expressed opinion can be challenged and rebutted, given access to reliable facts and data. The problem we have now is facts are no longer clear, we have seen this with Trump most recently but Putin's propaganda chief is on record as saying there is no way of telling truth anymore, and using this situation for example in the Ukraine to confuse the record. "Fake news" is the latest incarnation of this trend. We need reliable gatekeepers.
1
In reply to Hugh J:
No there is a call the genocide. If you really don't think this is the case, you are a fool.
Err, you are the one doing that here by insisting on a ludicrously literal reading of it
> I will reiterate. There is nothing that is directly racist in the content that has been posted here.
No there is a call the genocide. If you really don't think this is the case, you are a fool.
> If you percieve the undertones that you suggest then that is your problem and just writing off the opinions of others without careful consideration to what the author is trying to convey is firstly, your loss
Err, you are the one doing that here by insisting on a ludicrously literal reading of it
> and secondly an attack on the freedom of speech.
No, understanding the obvious intent of a passage is not an attack on free speech.Post edited at 18:34
1
In reply to MG:
Agreed this is a massive issue. But I think inflammatory pieces such as the article which led to me starting the thread (itself no different from Mr Farage's hateful views, or articles in the Mail) are a part of this. They are perhaps more factually rooted than the outright lies of fake news, but they use this grounding in real events to try to substantiate their weird and divisive viewpoints.
I think both phenomena are related. I also believe that the emergence of this dreary and discriminatory opinion in our everyday papers and TV, represents a highly dangerous assault on the fabric of our society.
> I think you are worrying about the wrong things, really. Openly held and expressed opinion can be challenged and rebutted, given access to reliable facts and data. The problem we have now is facts are no longer clear, we have seen this with Trump most recently but Putin's propaganda chief is on record as saying there is no way of telling truth anymore, and using this situation for example in the Ukraine to confuse the record. "Fake news" is the latest incarnation of this trend. We need reliable gatekeepers.
Agreed this is a massive issue. But I think inflammatory pieces such as the article which led to me starting the thread (itself no different from Mr Farage's hateful views, or articles in the Mail) are a part of this. They are perhaps more factually rooted than the outright lies of fake news, but they use this grounding in real events to try to substantiate their weird and divisive viewpoints.
I think both phenomena are related. I also believe that the emergence of this dreary and discriminatory opinion in our everyday papers and TV, represents a highly dangerous assault on the fabric of our society.
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Sorry Luke, but you need to get this straight. It was not a "low level racist piece", there may be some elements of bigotry involved, but it was in fact you that made it a racist issue with your "The majority of subscribers to the Islamic faith are black and brown, so let's not mince our words" statement. The author of the newspaper article is obviously sickened by the events in Berlin and has rightly or wrongly concluded that it was ineviitable consequence of what he perceives as Europe's gung-ho attitude to immigration.
If you are offended by someone's view then you have to respond with reasoned argument to have any chance of changing their stance. Just shouting at them, attaching perjorative labels and trying to drown out any opposing view will get you the epithet of social justice warrior (which I know is a contradictory and derogatory term). It also closes you off to developing a true understanding of issues because you do not gain from someone else's contributions. Whether they are deeply wrong to hold their views is neither here nor there, they have a right to their views, but you have a right (if not duty) to challenge those views with your own reasoned arguments.
This is simply meant to be friendly advice (and I can accept that I may be completely wrong), Paddy.
> My entire point in this thread is that we are now allowing people who blatantly espouse such views to write low-level hate speech in mainstream press. Gutter opinions such as Steyn's would have been consigned to their rightful place 20 years ago; the whole point is that he's written a thoroughly ordinary low-level racist piece, while at the same time holding the most vicious of views on the likely end to Europe's 'Muslim problem': not only holding that opinion but disseminating it leveraging his protected status as a mouthpiece for a pretty hateful media entity. An entity which itself happens to be linked at the highest levels to international Government and business.
Sorry Luke, but you need to get this straight. It was not a "low level racist piece", there may be some elements of bigotry involved, but it was in fact you that made it a racist issue with your "The majority of subscribers to the Islamic faith are black and brown, so let's not mince our words" statement. The author of the newspaper article is obviously sickened by the events in Berlin and has rightly or wrongly concluded that it was ineviitable consequence of what he perceives as Europe's gung-ho attitude to immigration.
If you are offended by someone's view then you have to respond with reasoned argument to have any chance of changing their stance. Just shouting at them, attaching perjorative labels and trying to drown out any opposing view will get you the epithet of social justice warrior (which I know is a contradictory and derogatory term). It also closes you off to developing a true understanding of issues because you do not gain from someone else's contributions. Whether they are deeply wrong to hold their views is neither here nor there, they have a right to their views, but you have a right (if not duty) to challenge those views with your own reasoned arguments.
This is simply meant to be friendly advice (and I can accept that I may be completely wrong), Paddy.
Post edited at 19:28
2
1
In reply to LG-Mark:
I don't. It is just my belief that there are a lot of people who don't have a self formulated opinion. Some would just prefer it to be spoon fed, which is their choice, if that's how they would like to exist so be it.
> So at what degree of intelligence precisely, do you deem peoples opinions unworthy?
I don't. It is just my belief that there are a lot of people who don't have a self formulated opinion. Some would just prefer it to be spoon fed, which is their choice, if that's how they would like to exist so be it.
1
In reply to MG:
Having just read the passage in context (i.e. the first ten pages of the book, which is on google books, that paragraph is on page 5) I think it is not a call to genocide, but it is a prediction of genocide.
> No there is a call the genocide ...
Having just read the passage in context (i.e. the first ten pages of the book, which is on google books, that paragraph is on page 5) I think it is not a call to genocide, but it is a prediction of genocide.
2
1
In reply to MG:
Ah, I see your line of argument now and withdraw some assumptions that I made. I am in totally agreement with you here.
> I think you are worrying about the wrong things, really. Openly held and expressed opinion can be challenged and rebutted, given access to reliable facts and data. The problem we have now is facts are no longer clear, we have seen this with Trump most recently but Putin's propaganda chief is on record as saying there is no way of telling truth anymore, and using this situation for example in the Ukraine to confuse the record. "Fake news" is the latest incarnation of this trend. We need reliable gatekeepers.
Ah, I see your line of argument now and withdraw some assumptions that I made. I am in totally agreement with you here.
In reply to MG:
No, there is not "call to genocide" there is a warning that it could be a consequence. It is not clear due to the use of quotation marks whether the second "Cull 'em" is a continuation of the quote or a highlight placed by Murderous_Crow to draw attention to this inflammatory phrase.
By insisting the passage is overtly racist you are suggesting that it is outside the bounds of decency and should be automatically discarded. Perhaps the author is suggesting that if we don't take this problem seriously we could end up with the situation that occured in Bosnia? That is a civil war will break out and the far right will resort to their default extreme, which is genocide.
> No there is a call the genocide. If you really don't think this is the case, you are a fool.
No, there is not "call to genocide" there is a warning that it could be a consequence. It is not clear due to the use of quotation marks whether the second "Cull 'em" is a continuation of the quote or a highlight placed by Murderous_Crow to draw attention to this inflammatory phrase.
> No, understanding the obvious intent of a passage is not an attack on free speech.
By insisting the passage is overtly racist you are suggesting that it is outside the bounds of decency and should be automatically discarded. Perhaps the author is suggesting that if we don't take this problem seriously we could end up with the situation that occured in Bosnia? That is a civil war will break out and the far right will resort to their default extreme, which is genocide.
In reply to Hugh J:
Paddy I don't accept this. We've already run over the arguments for and against why this is racist. It's worth stopping at this point to note that bigots do not tend to be particularly selective in their bigotry (only in their shrieking manufactured outrage at such accusations). Some people are able to hold calm and clear discussions regarding the merits and demerits of particular religious systems; it is however blatantly obvious that Steyn's hate-filled response to the latest Islamist atrocity is not a call to intellectual debate on the issue. Instead it is yet another example of incitement to, if not hatred, certainly fear and mistrust of 'the other'.
As was eloquently pointed out above by other posters in the thread this is about the 'othering' of Muslims, and how it is impossible to segregate mistrust of the religion, from the majority of its followers. As such when people are told their mistrust for 'Muslims' or just 'Islam' is justified, that translates directly to mistrust of brown people, particularly those dressed in a certain way, or who use a certain language, or practice certain habits (such as their right to prayer). But let's be clear - the author is still essentially talking about a specific subset of otherwise completely unidentifiable majority brown or black people. Do you see what I mean now?
> Sorry Luke, but you need to get this straight. It was not a "low level racist piece", there may be some elements of bigotry involved, but it was in fact you that made it a racist issue with your "The majority of subscribers to the Islamic faith are black and brown, so let's not mince our words" statement. The author of the newspaper article is obviously sickened by the events in Berlin and has rightly or wrongly concluded that it was ineviitable consequence of what he perceives as Europe's gung-ho attitude to immigration.
Paddy I don't accept this. We've already run over the arguments for and against why this is racist. It's worth stopping at this point to note that bigots do not tend to be particularly selective in their bigotry (only in their shrieking manufactured outrage at such accusations). Some people are able to hold calm and clear discussions regarding the merits and demerits of particular religious systems; it is however blatantly obvious that Steyn's hate-filled response to the latest Islamist atrocity is not a call to intellectual debate on the issue. Instead it is yet another example of incitement to, if not hatred, certainly fear and mistrust of 'the other'.
As was eloquently pointed out above by other posters in the thread this is about the 'othering' of Muslims, and how it is impossible to segregate mistrust of the religion, from the majority of its followers. As such when people are told their mistrust for 'Muslims' or just 'Islam' is justified, that translates directly to mistrust of brown people, particularly those dressed in a certain way, or who use a certain language, or practice certain habits (such as their right to prayer). But let's be clear - the author is still essentially talking about a specific subset of otherwise completely unidentifiable majority brown or black people. Do you see what I mean now?
Post edited at 19:29
2
In reply to Hugh J:
It's the latter.
> It is not clear due to the use of quotation marks whether the second "Cull 'em" is a continuation of the quote or a highlight placed by Murderous_Crow to draw attention to this inflammatory phrase.
It's the latter.
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Can you give us some suggestions or examples of how you would like the debate to be conducted?
That is, the debate over whether it is a good idea for Europe to take large numbers of migrants from Muslim countries given the fraction of them that hold extremist views or hold religious views such that they (or their children) are prone to being radicalised.
> ... it is however blatantly obvious that Steyn's hate-filled response to the latest Islamist atrocity is not a call to intellectual debate on the issue.
Can you give us some suggestions or examples of how you would like the debate to be conducted?
That is, the debate over whether it is a good idea for Europe to take large numbers of migrants from Muslim countries given the fraction of them that hold extremist views or hold religious views such that they (or their children) are prone to being radicalised.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Yes it is.
It bears repeating that the writer used this exact careless, offhand terminology. Not just the word 'cull', as if this could ever be a reasonable description for the slaughter of people, such as happened in Srebrenica for example. The Nazis used similar terminology for the process of the Holocaust.
But the casual, brutal "cull 'em".
Filthy, dehumanising language, with a very clear intent. Legally, he's on safe enough ground, but no-one (least of all a rigorous academic) should be kidding themselves that it is anything other than hate speech.
> It's the latter.
Yes it is.
It bears repeating that the writer used this exact careless, offhand terminology. Not just the word 'cull', as if this could ever be a reasonable description for the slaughter of people, such as happened in Srebrenica for example. The Nazis used similar terminology for the process of the Holocaust.
But the casual, brutal "cull 'em".
Filthy, dehumanising language, with a very clear intent. Legally, he's on safe enough ground, but no-one (least of all a rigorous academic) should be kidding themselves that it is anything other than hate speech.
Post edited at 19:34
1
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Just because one person, who was rather guilty of hyperbole, said that, doesn't make it true. What was it I had said which was so unpleasant that your friend thought it the worse thing he had ever seen here? I think I'll go find out;
Well, having searched the threads you have posted in in the last 6 month I cannot find any interaction between us. More porkie pies from you then.
No, seeing you are totally incapable of quoting me, your lying is exposed. I have challenged you to show where I have issued anything like you disgusting vile attacks, you cannot do so as I have not. £50.00 to a charity of your choice, to you, or anyone else here, who can find an insult which I have posted in this thread against you, which justifies your infantile responses.
Ooh, get you big boy. Yet again you do not see the irony in your posts
I haven't insulted your character at all, and I'm happy to carry on doing that.
The fundamental point of your thread is that you found something to get some brownie points from, behind a paywall in an Australian Sunday newspaper website, well done you
> Gall? Really? After the last episode, in which one respected and genuine poster said he'd never seen anything as unpleasant as your response to me in over ten years on UKC? And you talk about gall?
Just because one person, who was rather guilty of hyperbole, said that, doesn't make it true. What was it I had said which was so unpleasant that your friend thought it the worse thing he had ever seen here? I think I'll go find out;
Well, having searched the threads you have posted in in the last 6 month I cannot find any interaction between us. More porkie pies from you then.
> But yes, I've responded like with like.
No, seeing you are totally incapable of quoting me, your lying is exposed. I have challenged you to show where I have issued anything like you disgusting vile attacks, you cannot do so as I have not. £50.00 to a charity of your choice, to you, or anyone else here, who can find an insult which I have posted in this thread against you, which justifies your infantile responses.
> Your behaviour led me to my conclusions about your character, so perhaps you could consider why I reply to you in a manner I don't use with others. I say what I see, and I would gladly say the same to your face.
Ooh, get you big boy. Yet again you do not see the irony in your posts
> If you like, we could try to bury the hatchet here and now. I won't insult your character if you don't insult mine, and we could stick with the debate without the unnecessary personal attacks.
I haven't insulted your character at all, and I'm happy to carry on doing that.
> You haven't tried to counter the fundamental point of the thread, namely that hateful rhetoric is increasingly commonplace in mainstream media.
The fundamental point of your thread is that you found something to get some brownie points from, behind a paywall in an Australian Sunday newspaper website, well done you
Post edited at 19:47
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Yes I can see what you mean, but I don't agree. I don't really need to repeat my arguments, I hope you have already taken them in.
You need to stay away from Sam Harris then! Especially, if you think that the things suggested in those quoted pieces by Steyn are bigotry. For example:
"We don't have a problem with Jain extremism, in fact the more extreme a Jain becomes, the less we have to worry about them. We do have a problem with Islamic extremism and what's more, Muslims have a problem with Islamic extremism."
I am sorry, but I really have to stress this again, it is you that is bringing race into this. You have to be really careful here or you could stray accidently into the "soft bigotry of low expectations".
> Paddy I don't accept this. We've already run over the arguments for and against why this is racist. It's worth stopping at this point to note that bigots do not tend to be particularly selective in their bigotry (only in their shrieking manufactured outrage at such accusations). Some people are able to hold calm and clear discussions regarding the merits and demerits of particular religious systems; it is however blatantly obvious that Steyn's hate-filled response to the latest Islamist atrocity is not a call to intellectual debate on the issue. Instead it is yet another example of incitement to, if not hatred, certainly fear and mistrust of 'the other'.
> As was eloquently pointed out above by other posters in the thread this is about the 'othering' of Muslims, and how it is impossible to segregate mistrust of the religion, from the majority of its followers. As such when people are told their mistrust for 'Muslims' or just 'Islam' is justified, that translates directly to mistrust of brown people, particularly those dressed in a certain way, or who use a certain language, or practice certain habits (such as their right to prayer). But let's be clear - the author is still essentially talking about a specific subset of otherwise completely unidentifiable majority brown or black people. Do you see what I mean now?
Yes I can see what you mean, but I don't agree. I don't really need to repeat my arguments, I hope you have already taken them in.
You need to stay away from Sam Harris then! Especially, if you think that the things suggested in those quoted pieces by Steyn are bigotry. For example:
"We don't have a problem with Jain extremism, in fact the more extreme a Jain becomes, the less we have to worry about them. We do have a problem with Islamic extremism and what's more, Muslims have a problem with Islamic extremism."
I am sorry, but I really have to stress this again, it is you that is bringing race into this. You have to be really careful here or you could stray accidently into the "soft bigotry of low expectations".
Post edited at 19:45
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Coel I've already outlined my position on all of this, and while related it's not the topic at hand. As far as how I'd like any debate to be conducted going forward, my preference would be for it to be kept free of incendiary and discriminatory comments designed to foster hatred, suspicion and fear.
There's a problem of Islamist terror, and it's a big one. But the essential questions are things such as what changes in our society, when we choose to respond in any given way? Do we risk losing the ethos which made us a great society? Is it not within our capability to be both compassionate toward the innocent, and just towards the guilty?
Assuming innocence before establishing guilt is a cornerstone of our society. To ban Muslim immigration as Steyn suggests, on the basis that *some* of them are hateful and violent is the antithesis of this fundamental aspect of what it means to be 'British'.
> Can you give us some suggestions or examples of how you would like the debate to be conducted? That is, the debate over whether it is a good idea for Europe to take large numbers of migrants from Muslim countries given the fraction of them that hold extremist views or hold religious views such that they (or their children) are prone to being radicalised.
Coel I've already outlined my position on all of this, and while related it's not the topic at hand. As far as how I'd like any debate to be conducted going forward, my preference would be for it to be kept free of incendiary and discriminatory comments designed to foster hatred, suspicion and fear.
There's a problem of Islamist terror, and it's a big one. But the essential questions are things such as what changes in our society, when we choose to respond in any given way? Do we risk losing the ethos which made us a great society? Is it not within our capability to be both compassionate toward the innocent, and just towards the guilty?
Assuming innocence before establishing guilt is a cornerstone of our society. To ban Muslim immigration as Steyn suggests, on the basis that *some* of them are hateful and violent is the antithesis of this fundamental aspect of what it means to be 'British'.
1
In reply to Hugh J:
"We do have a problem with Islamic extremism and what's more, Muslims have a problem with Islamic extremism."
I agree with Harris' thinking here and at large. He's correct, and I don't find this quote of his at all bigoted. I've listened to a few of his lectures / podcasts, and I find him rational, cerebral and persuasive. But he's a lot like Hitchens and Dawkins: sometimes it's not enough for him to be correct - he has to be *loudly* correct. While I can admire that, as I too believe in taking a stand against things I find hateful, he must realise that condemning 'Islam' can very easily carry over into the condemnation of 'Muslims' in the minds of people less rational and rigorous than him. As such his thoughts can be too easily exploited by genuinely vicious people, who are pushing a hateful agenda. Harris has spoken on this if I remember correctly, and firmly rebuts *all* extremist views, but given one can't link that caveat to every quote of his, it must be accepted that while rigorous and correct, his message can all too easily be misinterpreted - as you assumed I would, for example.
Edited to add - you're doing Mr Harris a disfavour to equate his thinking with that of Mr Steyn's in any way. They come from very different places.
> You need to stay away from Sam Harris then! Especially, if you think that the things suggested in those quoted pieces by Steyn are bigotry. For example:
"We do have a problem with Islamic extremism and what's more, Muslims have a problem with Islamic extremism."
I agree with Harris' thinking here and at large. He's correct, and I don't find this quote of his at all bigoted. I've listened to a few of his lectures / podcasts, and I find him rational, cerebral and persuasive. But he's a lot like Hitchens and Dawkins: sometimes it's not enough for him to be correct - he has to be *loudly* correct. While I can admire that, as I too believe in taking a stand against things I find hateful, he must realise that condemning 'Islam' can very easily carry over into the condemnation of 'Muslims' in the minds of people less rational and rigorous than him. As such his thoughts can be too easily exploited by genuinely vicious people, who are pushing a hateful agenda. Harris has spoken on this if I remember correctly, and firmly rebuts *all* extremist views, but given one can't link that caveat to every quote of his, it must be accepted that while rigorous and correct, his message can all too easily be misinterpreted - as you assumed I would, for example.
Edited to add - you're doing Mr Harris a disfavour to equate his thinking with that of Mr Steyn's in any way. They come from very different places.
Post edited at 20:04
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
So is there a way to express the opinion:
"Owing to the fact that some percentage of migrants from Muslim countries are likely to have extremist views, I think we should not accept any more migrants from such countries".
... that you would not object to? Or are you saying that that opinion itself is unacceptable? In which case you're not just objecting to the tone of the debate, but the debate itself?
> As far as how I'd like any debate to be conducted going forward, my preference would be for it to be kept free of incendiary and discriminatory comments designed to foster hatred, suspicion and fear.
So is there a way to express the opinion:
"Owing to the fact that some percentage of migrants from Muslim countries are likely to have extremist views, I think we should not accept any more migrants from such countries".
... that you would not object to? Or are you saying that that opinion itself is unacceptable? In which case you're not just objecting to the tone of the debate, but the debate itself?
Post edited at 20:02
1
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
> Assuming innocence before establishing guilt is a cornerstone of our society. To ban Muslim immigration as Steyn suggests, on the basis that *some* of them are hateful and violent is the antithesis of this fundamental aspect of what it means to be 'British'.
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Yes, I'm aware that you do not agree with the opinion I just quoted. But that was not the question. The question is, is there any way of expressing that opinion that you would not object to? In which case you're not just objecting to the tone of the debate, but the debate itself?
Yes, I'm aware that you do not agree with the opinion I just quoted. But that was not the question. The question is, is there any way of expressing that opinion that you would not object to? In which case you're not just objecting to the tone of the debate, but the debate itself?
2
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
This boils down to a fundamental conflict between two very different views.
And I think it has a lot to do with the idea of what it means to be British.
I am an ex-British soldier. I deployed on various tours of duty over the course of 13 years' service, volunteering for the majority of those tours.
Although we didn't do so consciously, my colleagues and I defended the values of our country every day. We did this by remaining professional in tough conditions. This ethos could be seen in the way British forces at large conducted themselves. Despite some notable exceptions (and many more thoroughly spurious accusations), our Services were overwhelmingly professional and compassionate - as well as being extremely effective fighters. We didn't 'shoot first, ask questions later', preferring instead to laconically and carefully evaluate risk on a situation-by-situation basis. We patrolled in berets and on foot while Coalition partners were mounted, wearing helmets and sunglasses. Patrol commanders learned Arabic and Urdu and Pashto from their translators, and made conscious effort to respect local customs and practices.
As medics we treated the injured without discrimination.
Here and now it seems to me that British culture is changing: we are becoming more fearful, more unfair and far weaker than I've ever known. We had an ongoing problem for over thirty years with Irish terrorism, and yet we dealt with that far more deadly and effective threat with dignity and stoicism.
What are we becoming when we react to vulnerable displaced people with such mistrust? Are we not doing exactly what extremists on both sides want?
I think this will be my last on the subject. I'm feeling very drained, not to mention quite depressed, at the opposition raised against what I feel are sensible and salient points. Thanks for reading.
Luke
This boils down to a fundamental conflict between two very different views.
And I think it has a lot to do with the idea of what it means to be British.
I am an ex-British soldier. I deployed on various tours of duty over the course of 13 years' service, volunteering for the majority of those tours.
Although we didn't do so consciously, my colleagues and I defended the values of our country every day. We did this by remaining professional in tough conditions. This ethos could be seen in the way British forces at large conducted themselves. Despite some notable exceptions (and many more thoroughly spurious accusations), our Services were overwhelmingly professional and compassionate - as well as being extremely effective fighters. We didn't 'shoot first, ask questions later', preferring instead to laconically and carefully evaluate risk on a situation-by-situation basis. We patrolled in berets and on foot while Coalition partners were mounted, wearing helmets and sunglasses. Patrol commanders learned Arabic and Urdu and Pashto from their translators, and made conscious effort to respect local customs and practices.
As medics we treated the injured without discrimination.
Here and now it seems to me that British culture is changing: we are becoming more fearful, more unfair and far weaker than I've ever known. We had an ongoing problem for over thirty years with Irish terrorism, and yet we dealt with that far more deadly and effective threat with dignity and stoicism.
What are we becoming when we react to vulnerable displaced people with such mistrust? Are we not doing exactly what extremists on both sides want?
I think this will be my last on the subject. I'm feeling very drained, not to mention quite depressed, at the opposition raised against what I feel are sensible and salient points. Thanks for reading.
Luke
Post edited at 20:24
5
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I am not an expert on Mr Steyn, but much of what he says in the passages you have quoted are not that far away from things that Sam Harris has said in the past. I do believe Harris has somewhat mellowed in his views after working with Maajid Nawaz. Perhaps you have other reasons to concluded that Steyn is a racist bigot, I just don't come to that conclusion from what you have quoted. I can't really be bothered to research him too deeply, I'd rather spend my time researching far more illuminary commentators. From as far right as people like Douglas Murray to as far left as people like Noam Chomsky.
Another thought that may be worth considering is that perhaps Steyn's use of the phrase "cull 'em" was to draw emphasis on his disgust as to what happened in Bosnia in the late 90's? That is to say his disgust for the concept of genocide.
I am not an expert on Mr Steyn, but much of what he says in the passages you have quoted are not that far away from things that Sam Harris has said in the past. I do believe Harris has somewhat mellowed in his views after working with Maajid Nawaz. Perhaps you have other reasons to concluded that Steyn is a racist bigot, I just don't come to that conclusion from what you have quoted. I can't really be bothered to research him too deeply, I'd rather spend my time researching far more illuminary commentators. From as far right as people like Douglas Murray to as far left as people like Noam Chomsky.
Another thought that may be worth considering is that perhaps Steyn's use of the phrase "cull 'em" was to draw emphasis on his disgust as to what happened in Bosnia in the late 90's? That is to say his disgust for the concept of genocide.
Post edited at 20:40
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
Great post Luke and I truly could not empathise with those noble words any more.
I would say however, that unlike the IRA situation, the situation at present, which many think of as uncontrolled immigration, along with the real threats of Islamic extremism is perceived as a threat to the very culture and way of life you so valiantly defended. This may be unfounded, but fear is still fear. And I'm sure I don't need to tell you how that can mess with your head?
Great post Luke and I truly could not empathise with those noble words any more.
I would say however, that unlike the IRA situation, the situation at present, which many think of as uncontrolled immigration, along with the real threats of Islamic extremism is perceived as a threat to the very culture and way of life you so valiantly defended. This may be unfounded, but fear is still fear. And I'm sure I don't need to tell you how that can mess with your head?
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
You actually did that?
> Just because one person, who was rather guilty of hyperbole, said that, doesn't make it true. What was it I had said which was so unpleasant that your friend thought it the worse thing he had ever seen here? I think I'll go find out;
> Well, having searched the threads you have posted in in the last 6 month I cannot find any interaction between us.
You actually did that?
4
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Only the political ones, there was only half a dozen, it's easily done.
> You actually did that?
Only the political ones, there was only half a dozen, it's easily done.
1
2
In reply to Big Ger:
How do you keep the chatroom stuff?
> Only the political ones, there was only half a dozen, it's easily done.
How do you keep the chatroom stuff?
1
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
I'll give you a couple of reasons why these articles are appearing more and more in the mainstream press. (You may not like them, be warned.)
1) Papers, (even left leaning ones like the Herald Sun,) know that by printing/posting them they will get shock and outrage response. Not only that but they will be disseminated far and wide, by, let's just say... a certain type of person... on social media, as has happened in this instance. This is great news for the paper, as it increases click through, and potential advertising revenue.
Taking this tread as an example, how many more clicks has the Herald Sun had from people wanting to explore / verify the veracity of your posts? (How many more people are now aware of Mark Steyn's book"America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It," Regnery Publishing, 2006)
2) A proportion of UK, and other Western societies, old left wing base, the working class, now feel rejected by, isolated from, and unconnected to it's previous political representatives on the left, (in the UK the Labour party.) Why? Well, over the past years the old parties have become increasingly dominated by middle class left wing voters, the "middle class guilty brigade" as they are known who have brought their own "issues & causes" to the forefront, and left behind the working people of the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/20/labours-new-members-mostly...
This, coupled with mass immigration, and it's knock on effect to the working class, has led them to look elsewhere for political representation, and hence the rise of UKIP, populism, and other right of centre parties. This is also why the Daily Mail is now the most popular paper among the working class.
The middle class dominated left of centre no longer speaks to or for the working class voter, see Gordon Brown's "bigoted old woman" or Emily Thornburry's "white van man" tweet for prime examples. They are also tired of being lectured and harangued on "sexism" or racism" by the middle class guilt brigade. The Guardian and BBC are prime examples of this, they are losing the working class quicker than shit off a shovel due to their moralistic preachy tones , and obvious "issues and causes" focus.
I'll give you a couple of reasons why these articles are appearing more and more in the mainstream press. (You may not like them, be warned.)
1) Papers, (even left leaning ones like the Herald Sun,) know that by printing/posting them they will get shock and outrage response. Not only that but they will be disseminated far and wide, by, let's just say... a certain type of person... on social media, as has happened in this instance. This is great news for the paper, as it increases click through, and potential advertising revenue.
Taking this tread as an example, how many more clicks has the Herald Sun had from people wanting to explore / verify the veracity of your posts? (How many more people are now aware of Mark Steyn's book"America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It," Regnery Publishing, 2006)
2) A proportion of UK, and other Western societies, old left wing base, the working class, now feel rejected by, isolated from, and unconnected to it's previous political representatives on the left, (in the UK the Labour party.) Why? Well, over the past years the old parties have become increasingly dominated by middle class left wing voters, the "middle class guilty brigade" as they are known who have brought their own "issues & causes" to the forefront, and left behind the working people of the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/20/labours-new-members-mostly...
This, coupled with mass immigration, and it's knock on effect to the working class, has led them to look elsewhere for political representation, and hence the rise of UKIP, populism, and other right of centre parties. This is also why the Daily Mail is now the most popular paper among the working class.
The middle class dominated left of centre no longer speaks to or for the working class voter, see Gordon Brown's "bigoted old woman" or Emily Thornburry's "white van man" tweet for prime examples. They are also tired of being lectured and harangued on "sexism" or racism" by the middle class guilt brigade. The Guardian and BBC are prime examples of this, they are losing the working class quicker than shit off a shovel due to their moralistic preachy tones , and obvious "issues and causes" focus.
9
3
In reply to Big Ger:
Is that what is known as a "trigger warning" Big Ger?
I guess there will be plenty on here that give Big Ger criticism and dislikes for this post (oh yes, I see it's happening already), but do you know what? He's right. I told you that Big Ger sometimes talks a lot of sense. The scenario that he describes is also the exact same cause of The Drumpf collecting the keys to the White House. But as it's easier to label the disenfranchised (and disenchanted) as racists and bigoted idiots, whilst simply dismissing their concerns because of that view, I guess it's also easier to just turn away and see where the right wing takes these "basket of deplorables".
Yeah right!
They've had enough of this forced equity imposed by the left and "middle class guilt brigade". Rightly or wrongly (it is irrelevant which), they feel that has robbed them of their future more than it has anyone else. They really don't care about the true ethics of the people appealing to them, just that they appear to be listening to them (for now). In the US that is The Trumpet, in the UK it is the likes of the Daily Heil.
What many will refuse to understand is that people like Big Ger (I think) and myself are not happy about what is happening. It's just facing up to the reality of this pile of shite. But Big Ger tends to find his amusement by somewhat trolling people who refuse to understand or accept this reality. I try to show more patience on my part, though I'll admit, that doesn't always work.
I feel that what is happening on the left is somewhat akin to grief, the grief that they have been rejected by those they felt would always support them. It's said there are five stages to grief. It's time to get past the first two stages, which are denial and anger. Once they get to the final stage which is acceptance, then they can start to do something about it, re-evaluate what their cause and message is and gain back the core of the their traditional support. So maybe this should be done a quickly as possible? People need to decide which trench they are prepared to die in.
> I'll give you a couple of reasons why these articles are appearing more and more in the mainstream press. (You may not like them, be warned.)
Is that what is known as a "trigger warning" Big Ger?
I guess there will be plenty on here that give Big Ger criticism and dislikes for this post (oh yes, I see it's happening already), but do you know what? He's right. I told you that Big Ger sometimes talks a lot of sense. The scenario that he describes is also the exact same cause of The Drumpf collecting the keys to the White House. But as it's easier to label the disenfranchised (and disenchanted) as racists and bigoted idiots, whilst simply dismissing their concerns because of that view, I guess it's also easier to just turn away and see where the right wing takes these "basket of deplorables".
Yeah right!
They've had enough of this forced equity imposed by the left and "middle class guilt brigade". Rightly or wrongly (it is irrelevant which), they feel that has robbed them of their future more than it has anyone else. They really don't care about the true ethics of the people appealing to them, just that they appear to be listening to them (for now). In the US that is The Trumpet, in the UK it is the likes of the Daily Heil.
What many will refuse to understand is that people like Big Ger (I think) and myself are not happy about what is happening. It's just facing up to the reality of this pile of shite. But Big Ger tends to find his amusement by somewhat trolling people who refuse to understand or accept this reality. I try to show more patience on my part, though I'll admit, that doesn't always work.
I feel that what is happening on the left is somewhat akin to grief, the grief that they have been rejected by those they felt would always support them. It's said there are five stages to grief. It's time to get past the first two stages, which are denial and anger. Once they get to the final stage which is acceptance, then they can start to do something about it, re-evaluate what their cause and message is and gain back the core of the their traditional support. So maybe this should be done a quickly as possible? People need to decide which trench they are prepared to die in.
Post edited at 00:14
2
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Not only that, but it gives otherwise intelligent people a chance to denigrate the working class, as they don't meet their high intellectualised "PC" standards, (which are, of course, never to be challenged.)
Spot on. When I was back in Wales last month, I was in the heartland of the old Labour movement, in among the vast council estates, where my old dear lived. The change in political thinking, from "put a red rosette on a donkey and we'll vote for it" to "all they (Labour) care about is the immigrants and lesbians" was as obvious as it was shocking.
You're a better man than me Gunga Din.
What needs to happen is for Labour to stop grinding their gears over every minority issue, and Kensington dinner party talking point, and look to the working man and woman, (you know, those poor f*ckers who set up the Labour party,) and what their needs and concerns are. (I'll give you a clue, it isn't the shocking lack of single parent creche facilities availability to transgender Muslim refugees.)
Also, Labour need a realisation that the policies of Jeremy's golden youth, the policies which gave us the winter of discontent, will not cut the f*cking mustard, or be a vote winner in 2020.
All too late mate. The left has lost it's way, we're in for a 20 year Tory government, all we can hope is sufficient weight towards the centre ground can be asserted.
> Is that what is known as a "trigger warning" Big Ger?
> But as it's easier to label the disenfranchised (and disenchanted) as racists and bigoted idiots, whilst simply dismissing their concerns because of that view,
Not only that, but it gives otherwise intelligent people a chance to denigrate the working class, as they don't meet their high intellectualised "PC" standards, (which are, of course, never to be challenged.)
> They've had enough of this forced equity imposed by the left and "middle class guilt brigade". Rightly or wrongly (it is irrelevant which), they feel that has robbed them of their future more than it has anyone else. They really don't care about the true ethics of the people appealing to them, just that they appear to be listening to them (for now). In the US that is The Trumpet, in the UK it is the likes of the Daily Heil.
Spot on. When I was back in Wales last month, I was in the heartland of the old Labour movement, in among the vast council estates, where my old dear lived. The change in political thinking, from "put a red rosette on a donkey and we'll vote for it" to "all they (Labour) care about is the immigrants and lesbians" was as obvious as it was shocking.
> What many of will refuse to understand is that people like Big Ger (I think) and myself are not happy about what is happening.
TFR I'm not.> It's just facing up to the reality of this pile of shite. But Big Ger tends to find his amusement by somewhat trolling people who refuse to understand or accept this reality. I try to show more patience on my part, though I'll admit, that doesn't always work.
You're a better man than me Gunga Din.
> I feel that what is happening on the left is somewhat akin to grief, the grief that they have been rejected by those they felt would always support them. It's said there are five stages to grief. It's time to get past the first two stages, which are denial and anger. Once they get to the final stage which is acceptance, then they can start to do something about it, re-evaluate what their cause and message is and gain back the core of the their traditional support.
What needs to happen is for Labour to stop grinding their gears over every minority issue, and Kensington dinner party talking point, and look to the working man and woman, (you know, those poor f*ckers who set up the Labour party,) and what their needs and concerns are. (I'll give you a clue, it isn't the shocking lack of single parent creche facilities availability to transgender Muslim refugees.)
Also, Labour need a realisation that the policies of Jeremy's golden youth, the policies which gave us the winter of discontent, will not cut the f*cking mustard, or be a vote winner in 2020.
> So maybe this should be done a quickly as possible? People need to decide which trench they are prepared to die in.
All too late mate. The left has lost it's way, we're in for a 20 year Tory government, all we can hope is sufficient weight towards the centre ground can be asserted.
Post edited at 00:22
5
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Oh common Big Ger, don't hold it back, it'll be better if you let it all out!
(I know it's not strictly meant to be funny, but I can't stop laughing! D'you know what, I don't care, have a like).
> What needs to happen is for Labour to stop grinding their gears over every minority issue, and Kensington dinner party talking point, and look to the working man and woman, (you know, those poor f*ckers who set up the Labour party,) and what their needs and concerns are. (I'll give you a clue, it isn't the shocking lack of single parent creche facilities availability to transgender Muslim refugees.)
Oh common Big Ger, don't hold it back, it'll be better if you let it all out!
(I know it's not strictly meant to be funny, but I can't stop laughing! D'you know what, I don't care, have a like).
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Amen to that!
> . . . . . all we can hope is sufficient weight towards the centre ground can be asserted.
Amen to that!
1
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Don't get me started!
It was certainly tongue in cheek, so a laugh is warranted.
I'm off now, I have to go to a Uni lecture on "The economics of Fairtrade macrame in the developing world," before running a "knit your own organic garlic dreamcatcher Mandela, for the Calais Jungle refugee" fundraising event. I've joined the Labour party you see.
> Oh common Big Ger, don't hold it back, it'll be better if you let it all out!
Don't get me started!
> (I know it's not strictly meant to be funny, but I can't stop laughing! D'you know what, I don't care, have a like).
It was certainly tongue in cheek, so a laugh is warranted.
I'm off now, I have to go to a Uni lecture on "The economics of Fairtrade macrame in the developing world," before running a "knit your own organic garlic dreamcatcher Mandela, for the Calais Jungle refugee" fundraising event. I've joined the Labour party you see.
Post edited at 00:34
1
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Well that'll be a waste of time! Can you believe that just before the winter set in, those French fascist pigs have transported the lot of them to refugee hostels, complete with sanitation, running water and central heating. The bastards!
> . . . . . before running a "knit your own organic garlic dreamcatcher Mandela, for the Calais Jungle refugee" fundraising event.
Well that'll be a waste of time! Can you believe that just before the winter set in, those French fascist pigs have transported the lot of them to refugee hostels, complete with sanitation, running water and central heating. The bastards!
2
1
In reply to Hugh J:
Well, what do you know?
From today's Grauniad;
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/23/post-brexit-landscape-sque...
Funny, I'm sure I've heard that somewhere else....
Well, what do you know?
From today's Grauniad;
> ”This tension between working-class, struggling, Eurosceptic and anti-immigration, and more financially secure, middle class, pro-EU and cosmopolitan wings poses strategic dilemmas for Labour and provides opportunities for its main rivals,” he argues
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/23/post-brexit-landscape-sque...
Funny, I'm sure I've heard that somewhere else....
1
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Clang!
I think I've just heard a penny hitting the deck all the way from 105 Victoria Street.
> Funny, I'm sure I've heard that somewhere else....
Clang!
I think I've just heard a penny hitting the deck all the way from 105 Victoria Street.
1
In reply to Murderous_Crow:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
" the fact that it had been covered up for fear of "giving oxygen" to racism"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
" the fact that it had been covered up for fear of "giving oxygen" to racism"
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
A few thoughts:
1) Labour has always been dominated by the left wing middle class, ever since its conception. However in the past they were very much seen as the party of the working class and as such were consistantly voted in by solid labour wards. However the rise of Thatcher (and the failure of the previous labour government) and the long term of the conservatives pretty much shafted that. Blair won the 95 election by basically copying conservative policy (just watering it down a bit). And HEY! It worked. Labour stayed in government by being tory lite for longer than they had ever done before. But underneath it all they were steadily undermining their traditional core base of the electorate. I believe that the left wing made the mistake of believing that all they had to do was be the party of the "oppresssed" while at the same time their traditional core voters felt ever more oppressed.
2) Imigration is a mask. A concern drummed up by the media and driven by people who feel threatened. This has always been the case. Back in the 60's signs saying "No blacks or Irish" were common place and racism was endemic. Racism has always been the simplified answer to peoples problems (leaving those who cause those problems untouched). People worry about terrorism, people worry about their jobs and people worry about losing their "culture". Stopping imigration won't stop people being on shit wages, with shitty contracts and no power but somehow they think it will.
3) On the terrorism front I am with Coel but also with murderous_Crow. I am uncomfortable with cultures that see dropping or changing your religion as a reason for execution, that support honour killings, FGM, that regard women as third class citizens (while pretending that it is all about respecting them), that use religion to oppress and promote violence. However for every mad zealot there are thousands of ordinary people who just want to get on with their lives and are more than willing to help others. Whenever people get grouped in "for or against" camps then generally more people get hurt.
A few thoughts:
1) Labour has always been dominated by the left wing middle class, ever since its conception. However in the past they were very much seen as the party of the working class and as such were consistantly voted in by solid labour wards. However the rise of Thatcher (and the failure of the previous labour government) and the long term of the conservatives pretty much shafted that. Blair won the 95 election by basically copying conservative policy (just watering it down a bit). And HEY! It worked. Labour stayed in government by being tory lite for longer than they had ever done before. But underneath it all they were steadily undermining their traditional core base of the electorate. I believe that the left wing made the mistake of believing that all they had to do was be the party of the "oppresssed" while at the same time their traditional core voters felt ever more oppressed.
2) Imigration is a mask. A concern drummed up by the media and driven by people who feel threatened. This has always been the case. Back in the 60's signs saying "No blacks or Irish" were common place and racism was endemic. Racism has always been the simplified answer to peoples problems (leaving those who cause those problems untouched). People worry about terrorism, people worry about their jobs and people worry about losing their "culture". Stopping imigration won't stop people being on shit wages, with shitty contracts and no power but somehow they think it will.
3) On the terrorism front I am with Coel but also with murderous_Crow. I am uncomfortable with cultures that see dropping or changing your religion as a reason for execution, that support honour killings, FGM, that regard women as third class citizens (while pretending that it is all about respecting them), that use religion to oppress and promote violence. However for every mad zealot there are thousands of ordinary people who just want to get on with their lives and are more than willing to help others. Whenever people get grouped in "for or against" camps then generally more people get hurt.
2
In reply to Big Ger:
What centre ground? It is, if anything, the relentless chasing of the so called centre which has damaged both traditional Labour and tories. That and the cosying up to the big donors to get the cash to get those peoples vote at the expense of the other voters.
The main problem with Labour seems to be, unlike the tories, the willingness of the party to pretend to aim towards a common goal for a while before knifing the leader.
That and the "centre ground" unwillingness to consider that they might be part of the issue and instead joining in on the rabid rights attacks and exaggeration of a few student union types. Something which comes up quite a lot with Sam Harris. There was a fascinating interview with him and someone of a more right wing persuasion where they patted each other on the back as seeing "identity politics" as the issue whilst casually dismissing concerns about globalisation as a conspiracy theory adopted from the far right and also saying how they were both happy about how the previous presidents had mostly veered from their base to the "centre ground".
> All too late mate. The left has lost it's way, we're in for a 20 year Tory government, all we can hope is sufficient weight towards the centre ground can be asserted.
What centre ground? It is, if anything, the relentless chasing of the so called centre which has damaged both traditional Labour and tories. That and the cosying up to the big donors to get the cash to get those peoples vote at the expense of the other voters.
The main problem with Labour seems to be, unlike the tories, the willingness of the party to pretend to aim towards a common goal for a while before knifing the leader.
That and the "centre ground" unwillingness to consider that they might be part of the issue and instead joining in on the rabid rights attacks and exaggeration of a few student union types. Something which comes up quite a lot with Sam Harris. There was a fascinating interview with him and someone of a more right wing persuasion where they patted each other on the back as seeing "identity politics" as the issue whilst casually dismissing concerns about globalisation as a conspiracy theory adopted from the far right and also saying how they were both happy about how the previous presidents had mostly veered from their base to the "centre ground".
1
In reply to Duncan Bourne:
I don't disagree with much of what you wrote there Dunc, but would add a few caveats;
Agreed, now they are seen as a middle class do-gooder party, whose focus is the unemployed and minorities.
I think Bliar won by appealing more to the middle class who felt guilty after such a long period of Tory dominance. Bliar gave rise to the shift away from the working class.
No. Immigration is a genuine and undeniable concern for a large portion of the electorate, one who see Labour as exacerbating the problem. To deny or to try to ignore that issue will only lead to greater problems.
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/82089000/gif/_82089133_uk_n...
Again, that just clouds the picture, no one is aiming to "stop" immigration.
I don't think anyone would dispute that. However, mad zealots driving trucks into our local market and mowing down you friends and relatives seems to get a bit more news time for some strange reason. To say that for every mad zealot there are a 100,000 good people doesn't stop any trucks.
I don't disagree with much of what you wrote there Dunc, but would add a few caveats;
> However in the past they were very much seen as the party of the working class .
Agreed, now they are seen as a middle class do-gooder party, whose focus is the unemployed and minorities.
> Blair won the 95 election by basically copying conservative policy
I think Bliar won by appealing more to the middle class who felt guilty after such a long period of Tory dominance. Bliar gave rise to the shift away from the working class.
> Imigration is a mask
No. Immigration is a genuine and undeniable concern for a large portion of the electorate, one who see Labour as exacerbating the problem. To deny or to try to ignore that issue will only lead to greater problems.
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/82089000/gif/_82089133_uk_n...
> Stopping imigration won't stop people being on shit wages, with shitty contracts and no power but somehow they think it will.
Again, that just clouds the picture, no one is aiming to "stop" immigration.
> However for every mad zealot there are thousands of ordinary people who just want to get on with their lives and are more than willing to help others.
I don't think anyone would dispute that. However, mad zealots driving trucks into our local market and mowing down you friends and relatives seems to get a bit more news time for some strange reason. To say that for every mad zealot there are a 100,000 good people doesn't stop any trucks.
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Very true. But then because of those mad people good people become targets. The problem is that once you identify a group as a potential threat then everyone gets tarred with the same brush. So Irish = bomber during the IRA years. German = Nazi during the 2nd world war years and now Muslim = terrorist in the current era. This ostricisation, though natural, only helps the terrorist by increasing an "Us and them" situation.
> I don't think anyone would dispute that. However, mad zealots driving trucks into our local market and mowing down you friends and relatives seems to get a bit more news time for some strange reason. To say that for every mad zealot there are a 100,000 good people doesn't stop any trucks.
Very true. But then because of those mad people good people become targets. The problem is that once you identify a group as a potential threat then everyone gets tarred with the same brush. So Irish = bomber during the IRA years. German = Nazi during the 2nd world war years and now Muslim = terrorist in the current era. This ostricisation, though natural, only helps the terrorist by increasing an "Us and them" situation.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
just as an aside. Although do-gooders can be a pain I much prefer them to do-baders
just as an aside. Although do-gooders can be a pain I much prefer them to do-baders
3
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...