canidbeast
Member
Mine!
Posts: 71
Registered on: June 2016
|
Post by canidbeast on Jun 5, 2017 21:35:35 GMT
Can we just all agree that organized religion is terrible. Christian and Islamic terrorism is both terrible, but opinions about both are completely different. If a catholic shoots up an abortion clinic, that action is heavily denounced by everyone. We dont worry about what we say because we might radicalize another catholic terrorist. However when the terrorist is Islamic, we make excuses for what they did, and we worry about more radicalization due to Islamaphobia. Why do we worry about what we say when it's an Islamic terrorist, but not when it's a catholic terrorist. Fuck that, these Islamic fighting age men are insatiable, instead of worrying about hurting their feelings and radicalizing them, we need to promote western values and denounce Islamic terrorism. So no I don't agree with your islamaphobia comments endersai Because what tends to get lost is nuance. Islam itself becomes a target, and that does not help us engage with the 99.9% of Muslims who are moderate and mostlly politically secular. When, after the 11 September 2001 attacks in America, Americans beat the shit of sikhs (who aren't Muslim but you're asking a nation that has the lowest rate of international travel out of any developed world to know the difference) in retaliation. After Manchester, reprisal attacks on Muslims were reported. And there is a double standard at play. When people with made up stupid names like Amon and Cliven Bundy did their terroristic thing and siezed a Federal government installation in Oregon, they were and still are called a "militia". They're fucking terrorists. The difference may not seem like much but if an Arab does it, he's a terrorist but a white bloke with a made up idiotic name does it, he's a militia man. One is worse in context than another, so tell me - are they just being precious or do we have a problem? Hint: We have a problem. I quoted and put bold because that is what I think is the key problem. People overact, people look for one line in a book, one small piece of evidence to justify their hate or fear. In the end, I am smarter, better, and more moral than you. Even if I am not. Also, about the Bundy thing, I couldn't help myself:
|
|
__Gandhi__
Member
Popular Judean People's Silent Aitch Restoration Front
Posts: 137
Registered on: June 2015
Steam: Dont Shoot. I'm a Pacifist
Social Club: __Gandhi__
Discord: _Gandhi_#6912
|
Post by __Gandhi__ on Jun 5, 2017 21:58:02 GMT
Well the moment you stop allowing people to have their own thoughts, no matter how awful they are, you lose civil liberty and freedom. I'm fine for people having their own thoughts. It's when those thoughts include a desire to force others to follow the same path it becomes tricky. I'm guessing , but don't know, that under Assad the people of Raqqa had to be careful what they said about a lot of things. Under IS they probably have to be careful what they say about everything. Blasphemy is still a thing in many countries. I support freedom of speech. I don't believe we should stop people saying hateful things. I do think i'm fine discriminating against them for doing so.
|
|
Tsupernami
Member
Posts: 1,414
Registered on: November 2015
Steam: Tsupernami
Social Club: Tsupernami
Discord: Tsupernami#6025
|
Post by Tsupernami on Jun 5, 2017 22:09:15 GMT
Well the moment you stop allowing people to have their own thoughts, no matter how awful they are, you lose civil liberty and freedom. I'm fine for people having their own thoughts. It's when those thoughts include a desire to force others to follow the same path it becomes tricky. I'm guessing , but don't know, that under Assad the people of Raqqa had to be careful what they said about a lot of things. Under IS they probably have to be careful what they say about everything. Blasphemy is still a thing in many countries. I support freedom of speech. I don't believe we should stop people saying hateful things. I do think i'm fine discriminating against them for doing so. I don't understand why you keep saying you're fine discriminating against them. What is it you're doing? If you don't like them for whatever reason, that's not discrimination. That's just your own thoughts. As long as your words and actions don't infringe on their rights, do whatever the hell you want. "I'm fine for people having their own thoughts. It's when those thoughts include a desire to force others to follow the same path it becomes tricky. " This is the tricky part. "include a desire to force others to follow the same path" is absolutely fine until they act on those beliefs. At this point they are removing the rights of others to think and act for themselves. Preach all you like, the moment you threaten or lie to get others to act in a certain way is when it becomes a problem.
|
|
__Gandhi__
Member
Popular Judean People's Silent Aitch Restoration Front
Posts: 137
Registered on: June 2015
Steam: Dont Shoot. I'm a Pacifist
Social Club: __Gandhi__
Discord: _Gandhi_#6912
|
Post by __Gandhi__ on Jun 5, 2017 22:28:41 GMT
I don't understand why you keep saying you're fine discriminating against them. What is it you're doing? If you don't like them for whatever reason, that's not discrimination. That's just your own thoughts. As long as your words and actions don't infringe on their rights, do whatever the hell you want. I'll explain. I'm a taxi driver (That bit is real). Lets say there is a demo of radical Buddhist monks on the steps of the town hall near the rank. They spend a couple of hours handing out leaflets and justifying the ethnic cleansing in Rakhine State. "They are all just illegal immigrants anyway" they insist. "We are not killing them. Just encouraging them to leave". Demo over one of them walks over and wants a taxi. I'm not taking him. Why ? "Sorry mate. Just got a job come through". And I pull off the rank empty. Because I wouldn't want to break the law. I'd loose my license. I think your saying I should take him anyway as that's his right ?
|
|
Tsupernami
Member
Posts: 1,414
Registered on: November 2015
Steam: Tsupernami
Social Club: Tsupernami
Discord: Tsupernami#6025
|
Post by Tsupernami on Jun 5, 2017 22:30:56 GMT
I don't understand why you keep saying you're fine discriminating against them. What is it you're doing? If you don't like them for whatever reason, that's not discrimination. That's just your own thoughts. As long as your words and actions don't infringe on their rights, do whatever the hell you want. I'll spell it out. I'm a taxi driver (That bit is real). Lets say there is a demo of radical Buddhist monks on the steps of the town hall near the rank. They spend a couple of hours handing out leaflets and justifying the ethnic cleansing in Rakhine State. "They are all just illegal immigrants anyway" they insist. "We are not killing them. Just encouraging them to leave". Demo over one of them walks over and wants a taxi. I'm not taking him. Why ? "Sorry mate. Just got a job come through". And I pull off the rank empty. Because I wouldn't want to break the law. I'd loose my license. I think your saying I should take him anyway as that's his right ? No need to be rude, every previous example was you having bad thoughts about other people, that wasn't discrimination. It depends on the circumstances. If you know what he's doing is illegal, you can refuse to take him and call the police. If you don't know for certain what he is doing, you shouldn't refuse custom based on prejudice.
|
|
__Gandhi__
Member
Popular Judean People's Silent Aitch Restoration Front
Posts: 137
Registered on: June 2015
Steam: Dont Shoot. I'm a Pacifist
Social Club: __Gandhi__
Discord: _Gandhi_#6912
|
Post by __Gandhi__ on Jun 5, 2017 22:38:54 GMT
No need to be rude, every previous example was you having bad thoughts about other people, that wasn't discrimination. It depends on the circumstances. If you know what he's doing is illegal, you can refuse to take him and call the police. If you don't know for certain what he is doing, you shouldn't refuse custom based on prejudice. Sorry I didn't mean to come across as rude. I've edited the post. I can see how "I'll spell it" out could come across as rude. Prejudice would be if you just thought you knew. Prejudged someone. Which is wrong. If you actually know for a fact, that is something different.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 6, 2017 2:39:06 GMT
It is, but it depends entirely on the situation. I fear we've lost a key liberal tenet in our democracy, which is tolerance for a wide ranging set of views. We're getting dangerously close to a prescriptive "groupthink" approach to a lot of issues, which on the one hand might alleviate things like systemic discrimination, but on the other make our society less able to debate ideas and convince people over the righteousness of an argument. You notice this more and more - the rise of the backfire effect. I won't use your specific example, Ghandi, because you're talking about a breach of a jus cogens, but - ideally what we would expect to see is a debate on perspectives in which the objective application of facts can be used to sway opinion. The reality, however, is far different. The reality is our tolerance for debate, and our willingness to have our views challenged and changed, is non-existent. So instead of people advocating breaching a peremptory norm under customary international law, you encounter some EDL hooligans who've just been at a rally calling for all sorts of racially divisive laws. You're asking about saying "sorry mate, no can do." A few points: 1. Would it be fine if another driver said to a Pakistani "sorry mate, got a fair" because they don't like Asians? 2. Would it be fine if a Yemeni driver refused to take a Hasidic Jew because they hate Jews? 3. Would be be fine if a driver refused an obviously gay couple who'd been to a gay pride parade because of their social conservatism? The obvious answer is no, because those are all linked to acts of systemic discrimination and harm. The problem is, all were perfectly acceptable forms of discrimination in the past. History is littered with examples of when people felt Othering was acceptible, and we're no richer for it. The flip side to this of course is that discourse is non-existent. The left shut down a lot of discourse because of fear of being labelled racist or bigoted or Islamophobic. The pejorative term for these people is the regressive left. And the right tend to paint with so broad a brush that, as I said before, nuance is lost - the problem, they tell us as but one example, is Islam! It isn't, but that's not part of the rhetoric. I mean, I flew both Emirates and Etihad and drank alcohol on both. Plus one served bacon as part of breakfast, so yea... maybe they're not all about forcing shari'a on people? So debate goes; "the problem is Islam!" "No, the problem is racists like you!" "You're blind!" "You're ignorant!" ad infintium. Question is - those EDL type nationalists - why are they that way? What's made them feel like othering? Can they be swayed by a reasonable message, and if not why not? Personally I see a dilemma because you have people with access to instant "news", no time and no qualifications/training to form an opinion (so a reliance on echo chambers to do it for them); a disdain for expertise because it inserts nuance into instant gratification; and a relatively consequence free and impersonal way to share extreme views. So for example, when someone comes along with qualifications and experience and says "here are some facts which I think your narrative is missing", but the echo chamber of 30, 50, 200 people are all saying "this is the truth, not what they say", it's easy to sway opinion for a lot of people. If that's the problem with our public discourse, taking the easy route of discriminating against bigots - in effect, being intolerant of intolerance - then how are you changing the paradigm? How are you not contributing to it?
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 19, 2017 2:55:56 GMT
A car has targeted worshippers at the Finsbury Park Mosque. It just goes to show how violent non-Muslims are. Their ideology is sick and violent and twisted.
#NoDologic
|
|
Tsupernami
Member
Posts: 1,414
Registered on: November 2015
Steam: Tsupernami
Social Club: Tsupernami
Discord: Tsupernami#6025
|
Post by Tsupernami on Jun 19, 2017 5:25:00 GMT
A car has targeted worshippers at the Finsbury Park Mosque. It just goes to show how violent non-Muslims are. Their ideology is sick and violent and twisted. #NoDologic You beat me to it. By the logic of this topic and some users that have been here, we need to eradicate all non-Muslims because they kill innocent Muslim worshippers. It says to kill non-believers in one of their holy texts. They've done it for centuries, only 600 years ago they did it in our holy land, they still haven't given it back. They even created a new country for other people in our lands!
|
|
|
Post by Daleks (@darkalex45) on Jun 19, 2017 17:34:41 GMT
I swear this thread was locked in the morning? Wut happened.
|
|
|
Post by aidyhawse on Jun 19, 2017 17:45:03 GMT
I swear this thread was locked in the morning? Wut happened. Nope, you're just as crazy as what certain others are claiming about certain religions...
|
|
Hystery
Member
Posts: 556
Registered on: August 2016
Steam: DraconisRex
Social Club: Hystery
|
Post by Hystery on Jun 19, 2017 22:30:38 GMT
At least we could witness how biased medias and most people are.
One guy of arabic origins attempts to murder caucasian people? Terrorist attack banners everywhere, amalgams between Islam and extremism everywhere, persecuting the muslim population for what happened even though they have nothing to do with it.
One caucasian guy attempts to murder people of arabic origins/muslims? A small article in a corner of the news websites, no mention of a terrorist attack, or if the guy was or wasn't part of an extreme-right movement, or xenophobic, or if his religion pushed him to do what he did.
Double standards are such a wonderful thing.
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 19, 2017 22:52:15 GMT
But on the plus side; not only do Islamic State have their own "useful idiots" on the Islamophobic side of the argument but they can get them to act too, furthering Daesh's goals of division and conflict. I wonder how it feels to know that despite being Islamophobic, they are still further Daesh's goals? Like does this driver realise he's helping IS out?
|
|
|
Post by endersai on Jun 19, 2017 23:01:31 GMT
also, to anyone who feels "useful idiot" was aimed at them or is otherwise sensitive of their far right views; it's a prescribed term in political jargon, as per the hyperlinked page. It refers to people who act as unwitting propagandists for another side - the Soviets used a similar term for Marxist academics during the Cold War. For the avoidance of doubt, the term was used in the correct context (trust me - I am an actual political scientist. No, really, I have a postgraduate degree in the field) and addresses people like this driver whose overt actions - not words on a message board - have contributed to the outcome Daesh/Islamic State are seeking to achieve. It is not aimed at anyone here.
|
|
Tsupernami
Member
Posts: 1,414
Registered on: November 2015
Steam: Tsupernami
Social Club: Tsupernami
Discord: Tsupernami#6025
|
Post by Tsupernami on Jun 19, 2017 23:01:39 GMT
But on the plus side; not only do Islamic State have their own "useful idiots" on the Islamophobic side of the argument but they can get them to act too, furthering Daesh's goals of division and conflict. I wonder how it feels to know that despite being Islamophobic, they are still further Daesh's goals? Like does this driver realise he's helping IS out? A father of four from Wales. Who would ever think that this act would be the best one for their children to witness?
|
|