The UN is incorrect, unless that violence is because of race.Finally racism can also be defined as a violent hostility against a social group
Who’s being violently hostile towards Muslims exactly?
The UN is incorrect, unless that violence is because of race.Finally racism can also be defined as a violent hostility against a social group
Who’s being violently hostile towards Muslims exactly?
Well, you would say that...
I can see the headlines now: Far/Alt-Right guy defends Islamophobia SHOCK HORROR!!!
Rather than simply disagreeing for the sake it. How about trying to justify your position with supporting text and sources? After all, that is how debate works...
Um, alt-right, sure I am. I luurve David Duke like, top bloke.
Racism:
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
‘a programme to combat racism’The UN definition is polluted by politics. Wikipedia notes: “As of the 2000s, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.”The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
‘theories of racism’
The proper meaning in my opinion is the one I posted. If it has a large range of meanings, the word becomes meaningless, so I suggest you and others stop describing Islam criticism as racism.
In fact, the original meaning:
It was first defined by the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, 1989) as "[t]he theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race"; the same dictionary termed racism a synonym of racialism: "belief in the superiority of a particular race".
And Islamophobia. A word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons.
Sam Harris nails it. https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-aslan/381411/
“Islam is not a race, ethnicity, or nationality: It’s a set of ideas," Harris told me. "Criticism of these ideas should never be confused with an animus toward people. And yet it is. I’m convinced that this is often done consciously, strategically, and quite cynically as a means of shutting down conversation [on] important topics.”
Sam Harris is obviously racist against Muslims, which includes the thousands of people who convert genetically to Islam every year via CRISPR.
Ignore List (to save time):
Exarch, Coughdrop addict
UN is an organization whose security council is led by Saudi Arabia. Nobody should care what UN says. The term racism is based on race, otherwise one can say you can be racist against sports fans or people who like country music.
See above. Racism can only be about race. Defining criticism of Islam as racist seems like belief in "patriarchy", "white privelge" and other neo-marxist nonsense.Here are some other eminent sources that also disagree with you (in case you think the UN are lefty snowflakes or something).
https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-muslim-racism
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...semantics-word
http://news.rice.edu/2017/09/14/isla...l-intolerance/
It may be worryingly common, but it's definitely not sensible. In fact, you got it precisely backwards. The conclusion demands not the percentage of attacks committed by muslims but the percentage of muslims committing attacks.
Not that I'm a muslim apologist. I think their fantasies are as daft as those of christians, and one can only hope they die out sooner rather than later. In the mean time, trying to keep them from infecting policy is the best I can hope for.
Sure, it's a bit of a setback that just when christian politics are on the way out, we get to deal with another batch of brainwashed drones, but history shows the best way to overcome it is to let it die a quiet death rather than to try to stamp it out by force. Unless .... you feel your worldview is going to lose the battle of minds. Understandable for christians to feel that way, I suppose. I don't think humanists have to worry as much.
Last edited by Muizer; November 30, 2018 at 03:38 PM.
"Lay these words to heart, Lucilius, that you may scorn the pleasure which comes from the applause of the majority. Many men praise you; but have you any reason for being pleased with yourself, if you are a person whom the many can understand?" - Lucius Annaeus Seneca -
Papay, would you care to post the hate-tweet accounts from the far left? Just in the UK the anti-semitism? the death and rape threats directed against Tory mps?
I find it a bit hypocritical when I see a thread labeled "right" or "left"
I'd have more respect for a thread entitled "political hate speech, what should be done?" tht shows how BOTH political extremes are increasingly malicious.
Eh, the troubles aren’t a religious conflict.
There’s a good argument for that. The middle east is not homogeneous far from it
It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
-George Orwell
Well, well. Islamophobia is the first level of sharia law. Never criticize nor question Islam, but ...
Just hidden behind leftist political-correctness.
BTW if you feel offended by these Posts, sue the offenders. For this you do have a state of law.
Invasio Barbarorum: Ruina Roma Development Leader - Art made by Joar -Visit my Deviantart: http://gaiiten.deviantart.com/
What?
There critics of Islam, just as there people who defend Islam from all criticism. Political correctness is not "leftist". Plenty of morons who get outraged whenever anyone criticizes Christianity. Also apparently Fascism is Leftist too, and apparently Hollywood is liberal propaganda that should be illegal.Never criticize nor question Islam, but ...
Just hidden behind leftist political-correctness.
I don't get it. What's wrong with calling it out and pointing out the stupidity of the views you typed out? I either have to stay silent or "sue the offenders"? I can't simply be outraged and tweet out how stupid such thinking is?BTW if you feel offended by these Posts, sue the offenders. For this you do have a state of law.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
Pss....the intellectual father of Islamophobia is Bernard Lewis, the author of Assassins. (1). Sam Harris is a disciple.
-------
Tell me Aexodus, do you believe in globalism, in a global world? off course not. Globalism is an anathema, right?
Sam Harris, islamophobe,writes,
A global white Christian civilization, I presume.While the other major world religions have been fertile sources of intolerance, it is clear that the doctrine of Islam poses unique problems for the emergence of a global civilization.”
Harris is not a real antisemite but.....hmm. He says, quoting:"I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible"
----
(1) Edward Said- prof. at Columbia University, the author of Orientalism - and many other books Selected Bibliography of Work about and of Edward Said's Texts,
once argued that there is a connection among the academy (ie. Lewis, for example- and others.) government and media to craft narratives about Muslims to exert some sort of control over them.Let's keep in mind that Lewis was talking about that the "evil muslim east"-but in fact he is talking about the former Ottoman empire, which had indeed been invaded and ruled by European imperial powers for a century and more. For that reason, the colonial mind of Lewis understood Muslims as violent by nature, irrational, lacking in culture.
Last edited by Ludicus; December 10, 2018 at 08:39 PM.
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
Last edited by Diocle; December 10, 2018 at 09:08 PM.
I don't know if I follow the point you're making about Harris, but that quote about Israel is somewhat misrepresentative of his view when taken out of context. He immediately follows with:
Adding the following note to his published transcript:Though I just said that I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state, the justification for such a state is rather easy to find. We need look no further than the fact that the rest of the world has shown itself eager to murder the Jews at almost every opportunity. So, if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state. Now, friends of Israel might consider this a rather tepid defense, but it’s the strongest one I’ve got. I think the idea of a religious state is ultimately untenable.
Likewise, calling Bernard Lewis "the intellectual father of Islamophobia" is a bit much.Note: It is worth observing, however, that Israel isn’t “Jewish” in the sense that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are “Muslim.” As my friend Jerry Coyne points out, Israel is actually less religious than the U.S., and it guarantees freedom of religion to its citizens. Israel is not a theocracy, and one could easily argue that its Jewish identity is more cultural than religious. However, if we ask why the Jews wouldn’t move to British Columbia if offered a home there, we can see the role that religion still plays in their thinking.
For the sake of expediency, taken from his Wikipedia page:
If one took those quotes in isolation, he might come across as Islamophilic. His attempts at academic balance, whether successful or not, obviously left him susceptible to disingenuous quote mining from whatever angle one would like to take.Lewis presented some of his conclusions about Islamic culture, Shari'a law, jihad, and the modern day phenomenon of terrorism in his text Islam: The Religion and the People.[62] He writes of jihad as a distinct "religious obligation", but suggests that "it is a pity" that people engaging in terrorist activities are not more aware of their own religion:
"Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements. ... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays."[63]
In Lewis' view, the "by now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century" with "no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition".[64] He further comments that "the fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible" and that "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century".[65]
I have no issue with honest criticism of Harris or Lewis from any angle, but I think painting moderates as far-right extremists, is one of the reasons conversations on these types of topics devolve into nonsense. It seems especially odd to associate a former Marxist of Jewish ancestry and an anti-theist of partial Jewish ancestry with a desire to institute a "global white Christian civilization", but then I may have misunderstood the point being made.
It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.
-George Orwell
You have understood me correctly.
In Islam it is forbidden to either criticize or question Islam. Sharia laws deal brutally with such offenses and offenders. It is a sacrilege.
In Western world with our supposed idea of free speech, how could they enforce their will?
Some clever people had then the idea to declare critique of Islam as discrimination and racism towards the Muslim people. Discrimination and racism are the most horrible in Western world. If such an accusation is done, reasonable thinking is stopped and almost anything will be done to clear away the accusation of *discrimination*.
So the idea of Islamophobia was invented to have the offenses and offenders punished and any critique of Islam is offense, taking a hint of Sharia, because what has been simply free speech does follow now the basic of Sharia law. Keep them quiet, accept only the idea of Islam these people preach, because they are the most organized and aggressive.
You are mistaken this comment to the comments I did write above. These are intended for the lament of Papay at the beginning of this thread. If he feels offended by certain FB or Twitter comments he does have the right to sue these people. Then it will be decided if it is criminal offenses or not. By professional members of the judiciary, not emotional amateurs.
Invasio Barbarorum: Ruina Roma Development Leader - Art made by Joar -Visit my Deviantart: http://gaiiten.deviantart.com/
Sure, but why are we talking about backwards religious states? That's whataboutism.
They can't. That's the whole point. Even the most extremist Muslims cannot turn Europe into Sharia-states.In Western world with our supposed idea of free speech, how could they enforce their will?
Because it is racism. What's the point of criticizing Islam? It makes no sense. All religions are ridiculous. Moreover, much of the criticism against Islam can be attributed to the authoritarian nature of the regimes that are Islamic. In addition to that, criticism against Islam is constantly being used to attack accepting refugees. If that's not a form of bigotry, then I don't know what is.Some clever people had then the idea to declare critique of Islam as discrimination and racism towards the Muslim people. Discrimination and racism are the most horrible in Western world. If such an accusation is done, reasonable thinking is stopped and almost anything will be done to clear away the accusation of *discrimination*.
So the idea of Islamophobia was invented to have the offenses and offenders punished and any critique of Islam is offense, taking a hint of Sharia, because what has been simply free speech does follow now the basic of Sharia law. Keep them quiet, accept only the idea of Islam these people preach, because they are the most organized and aggressive.
Except far right hate-speech isn't sued these days. They are simply denied service and a platform to spread their hateful views. There's no need to sue them.You are mistaken this comment to the comments I did write above. These are intended for the lament of Papay at the beginning of this thread. If he feels offended by certain FB or Twitter comments he does have the right to sue these people. Then it will be decided if it is criminal offenses or not. By professional members of the judiciary, not emotional amateurs
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.