Vehicle driven into crowd in Stockholm Sweden

[Commodus]

Where is the line drawn though when all those things you just mention predominatly come from Christians? I mean sure its not the majority of Christian people, but the majority of said incidents are done by Christians. Its called profiling and its human nature to draw those conclusion about things you see. It doesnt mean you are 100% right all the time, but it does help a lot and is right most of the time. It is a slippery slope, but to not draw these conclusions because its not PC is doing a disservice to reason, logic and humanity as well as not addressing the actual problem because of feels.

It's simple: don't pin extremist acts on an entire religion. You can say a radical anti-choice Christian group did X or an extremist Muslim group did Y, but phrasing it in a way to suggest the whole religion was involved? No. The whole point is to resist profiling, to discourage people from leaping to conclusions and indulging in bigoted fantasies. Tell a nuanced, realistic version of the story, not the overbroad, sensationalist kind.

 

[woolfe9998]

It's simple: don't pin extremist acts on an entire religion. You can say a radical anti-choice Christian group did X or an extremist Muslim group did Y, but phrasing it in a way to suggest the whole religion was involved? No. The whole point is to resist profiling, to discourage people from leaping to conclusions and indulging in bigoted fantasies. Tell a nuanced, realistic version of the story, not the overbroad, sensationalist kind.

Nothing that you're saying is incorrect or objectionable. The problem is that there is a double standard among some liberals on the topic of Islam and the culture surrounding it. Not in relation to terrorism specifically, but in relation to the illiberal nature of Islamic culture. Attitudes and traits which liberals excoriate in American Christians - homophobia, religious intolerance, co-mingling government and religion - they are apt to ignore or downplay when it comes to Muslims. Certainly not all liberals do this, but many do. Take, for example, the Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz who was labeled an anti-Muslim extremist, not by some random lefty posting on social media, but by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...eing-smeared-as-an-anti-muslim-extremist.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

 

[soulcougher73]

It's simple: don't pin extremist acts on an entire religion. You can say a radical anti-choice Christian group did X or an extremist Muslim group did Y, but phrasing it in a way to suggest the whole religion was involved? No. The whole point is to resist profiling, to discourage people from leaping to conclusions and indulging in bigoted fantasies. Tell a nuanced, realistic version of the story, not the overbroad, sensationalist kind.

I don't want to resist profiling. There is nothing wrong with it. Humanity wouldn't exist without us connecting the dots and drawing informed conclusions from them. Jumping to conclusions would be me asserting purple uniforms were behind these terrorist attacks. Instead our profiling worked as intended.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using Tapatalk

 

[agent00f]

Nothing that you're saying is incorrect or objectionable. The problem is that there is a double standard among some liberals on the topic of Islam and the culture surrounding it. Not in relation to terrorism specifically, but in relation to the illiberal nature of Islamic culture. Attitudes and traits which liberals excoriate in American Christians - homophobia, religious intolerance, co-mingling government and religion - they are apt to ignore or downplay when it comes to Muslims. Certainly not all liberals do this, but many do. Take, for example, the Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz who was labeled an anti-Muslim extremist, not by some random lefty posting on social media, but by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...eing-smeared-as-an-anti-muslim-extremist.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

There's pretty easy to discern between disparaging bigots and defending them. Punishing american conservatism which is a legit problem for the country doesn't imply much love for other varieties. The main difference is the former persists despite the best efforts of western liberalism (eg mandatory leftist K-12), largely due to an underlying historical culture of degeneracy.

 

[woolfe9998]

There's pretty easy to discern between disparaging bigots and defending them. Punishing american conservatism which is a legit problem for the country doesn't imply much love for other varieties. The main difference is the former persists despite the best efforts of western liberalism (eg mandatory leftist K-12), largely due to an underlying historical culture of degeneracy.

It isn't a matter of paying less attention to other varieties of intolerance. It's a matter of actively labeling those who oppose such intolerance as themselves intolerant. When you have Muslims who are saying and doing things in the Muslim community which are similar to what American liberals say and do in relation to conservative American Christians, there ought not to be any confusion about who is intolerant and who is not. American liberals are not duty bound to tolerate the intolerance of American conservative Christians. Nor are liberal Muslim reformers when it comes to intolerant Muslim conservatives. The SPLC of all organizations ought to be expert in making such a distinction. Yet it routinely labels liberal Muslim reformers as purveyors of hate speech.

Liberals are not without fault. Among some liberals, there is a fetishizing of certain "victim groups" which can cause a perception that anyone criticizing said group is some kind of bigot. If these Muslim reformers are bigots, then so too are American liberals in relation to Christianity, because there is a very close parallel between the two.

 

[agent00f]

It isn't a matter of paying less attention to other varieties of intolerance. It's a matter of actively labeling those who oppose such intolerance as themselves intolerant. When you have Muslims who are saying and doing things in the Muslim community which are similar to what American liberals say and do in relation to conservative American Christians, there ought not to be any confusion about who is intolerant and who is not. American liberals are not duty bound to tolerate the intolerance of American conservative Christians. Nor are liberal Muslim reformers when it comes to intolerant Muslim conservatives. The SPLC of all organizations ought to be expert in making such a distinction. Yet it routinely labels liberal Muslim reformers as purveyors of hate speech.

Liberals are not without fault. Among some liberals, there is a fetishizing of certain "victim groups" which can cause a perception that anyone criticizing said group is some kind of bigot. If these Muslim reformers are bigots, then so too are American liberals in relation to Christianity, because there is a very close parallel between the two.

It's not really that hard to categorize intolerance and such without the political baggage. Eg: https://www.splcenter.org/20161025/journalists-manual-field-guide-anti-muslim-extremists#nawaz

 

[Corn]

I apologize in advance for this, but feel duty bound to employ douchebag 007 logic and proclaim your posting history here proves your are a lefty degenerate and actually are supportive of all lefty posters and their opinions.....because....well.....reasons.

It isn't a matter of paying less attention to other varieties of intolerance. It's a matter of actively labeling those who oppose such intolerance as themselves intolerant. When you have Muslims who are saying and doing things in the Muslim community which are similar to what American liberals say and do in relation to conservative American Christians, there ought not to be any confusion about who is intolerant and who is not. American liberals are not duty bound to tolerate the intolerance of American conservative Christians. Nor are liberal Muslim reformers when it comes to intolerant Muslim conservatives. The SPLC of all organizations ought to be expert in making such a distinction. Yet it routinely labels liberal Muslim reformers as purveyors of hate speech.

Liberals are not without fault. Among some liberals, there is a fetishizing of certain "victim groups" which can cause a perception that anyone criticizing said group is some kind of bigot. If these Muslim reformers are bigots, then so too are American liberals in relation to Christianity, because there is a very close parallel between the two.

 

[agent00f]

I apologize in advance for this, but feel duty bound to employ douchebag 007 logic and proclaim your posting history here proves your are a lefty degenerate and actually are supportive of all lefty posters and their opinions.....because....well.....reasons.

Sorry, only actual degenerates like yourself get the badge, even if they're bound to play too dumb to discern the difference.

 

[Corn]

Excuse me, but I was actually speaking to one of your betters. Don't need to waste any time addressing you directly. You don't actually matter. Just making sure your kind know their posts are being watched and their friends measured.

 

[agent00f]

Excuse me, but I was actually speaking to one of your betters. Don't need to waste any time addressing you directly. You don't actually matter. Just making sure your kind know their posts are being watched and their friends measured.

Eg. a defining characteristic of degeneracy is the perpetual faith that worthless blustering will finally work one day.

 

[desura]

We... won't? It's horrible, it's obviously fueled by religious hatred.

What we won't do is use this as a pretext for what you so desperately want: outright religious discrimination. Muslims are still complex, varied human beings, and lumping 1.7 billion people in with extremists is the simplistic coward's way of doing things.

Such a white knight. So admirable. All authoritarians at heart only want to protect whatever victim projection that they've built up in their minds.

The swedes are such a nice people and they welcomed in this guy and others like them out of the kindness of their values. It is odd how there could be a legit case for say, Mexican terrorism, and yet there is no Mexican terrorism. Or Vietnamese terrorism. Yet there is no Vietnamese terrorism. Culture and religion are the reason why. It isn't that Islam was victimized by the West and if you stop the victimization then the violence stops. It is more like Islam is fundamentally opposed to the West and so they dig up whatever grievances they can get their hands on to justify their fundamental opposition.

 

[Svnla]

It isn't a matter of paying less attention to other varieties of intolerance. It's a matter of actively labeling those who oppose such intolerance as themselves intolerant. When you have Muslims who are saying and doing things in the Muslim community which are similar to what American liberals say and do in relation to conservative American Christians, there ought not to be any confusion about who is intolerant and who is not. American liberals are not duty bound to tolerate the intolerance of American conservative Christians. Nor are liberal Muslim reformers when it comes to intolerant Muslim conservatives. The SPLC of all organizations ought to be expert in making such a distinction. Yet it routinely labels liberal Muslim reformers as purveyors of hate speech.

Liberals are not without fault. Among some liberals, there is a fetishizing of certain "victim groups" which can cause a perception that anyone criticizing said group is some kind of bigot. If these Muslim reformers are bigots, then so too are American liberals in relation to Christianity, because there is a very close parallel between the two.

Ding, ding, ding. Winner. Especially the bolded/underlined part.

Be critical of bad behavior/illegal activities (not race/creed/nationality/religious belief/etc.) of anyone, whether they are the minority or not, is not racist/bigot. At least there is someone here with a brain between the ears instead of manure.

Watch out how the forum fail troll will quote my post and begin his ranting and accusation and "soooooo rrrrrrraaaaacccciiiiiissssst". Just like clockwork.

 

[bshole]

Nothing that you're saying is incorrect or objectionable. The problem is that there is a double standard among some liberals on the topic of Islam and the culture surrounding it. Not in relation to terrorism specifically, but in relation to the illiberal nature of Islamic culture. Attitudes and traits which liberals excoriate in American Christians - homophobia, religious intolerance, co-mingling government and religion - they are apt to ignore or downplay when it comes to Muslims. Certainly not all liberals do this, but many do. Take, for example, the Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz who was labeled an anti-Muslim extremist, not by some random lefty posting on social media, but by the Southern Poverty Law Center:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...eing-smeared-as-an-anti-muslim-extremist.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

I like Nawaz. He is proof that Islamists CAN be turned and NOT THROUGH VIOLENCE. He was treated as a human and not as the enemy. People like Nawaz are absolutely critical to the secularization of Islam.

The SPLC labeled him an anti-Muslim extremist after he tweeted a Jesus and Mo cartoon alluding to the prophet Muhammed. The Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice has written a public letter to the SPLC to retract the listing. Nawaz has also been living under death threats since tweeting the cartoon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_Mo

Nawaz is a former member of the Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir. This association led to his arrest in Egypt in December 2001, where he remained imprisoned until 2006. Reading books on human rights and interacting with Amnesty International, which adopted him as a prisoner of conscience, resulted in a change of heart. This led Nawaz to leave Hizb-ut-Tahrir in 2007, renounce his Islamist past and call for a "Secular Islam".[5]

After his turnaround, Nawaz co-founded Quilliam with former Islamists, including Ed Husain.[6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

 

[Commodus]

Such a white knight. So admirable. All authoritarians at heart only want to protect whatever victim projection that they've built up in their minds.

The swedes are such a nice people and they welcomed in this guy and others like them out of the kindness of their values. It is odd how there could be a legit case for say, Mexican terrorism, and yet there is no Mexican terrorism. Or Vietnamese terrorism. Yet there is no Vietnamese terrorism. Culture and religion are the reason why. It isn't that Islam was victimized by the West and if you stop the victimization then the violence stops. It is more like Islam is fundamentally opposed to the West and so they dig up whatever grievances they can get their hands on to justify their fundamental opposition.

Ah yes, "white knight..." the time-honored response when you don't want to give a damn about people who don't look and act like you. Nope, can't just have empathy, has to be white knighting.

Also, your examples of how other cultures could have terrorism... make no sense. Mexicans don't have terrorism because their government, as dodgy as it is, is not totalitarian. Gang violence is likely a higher priority anyway. Vietnam had guerrilla warfare during its war, but there isn't exactly a lot internal dissent to its government or cultural values. However, the Middle East has plenty of factors at work: Shia vs. Sunni, many decades of oppression in some countries (some of it from outside nations, some from internal dictatorships), economic hardships prompted by wars... gee, it's as if being perpetually beaten down by one faction or another leaves you feeling angry and hopeless.

 

[brycejones]

How cute desura is going full alt-right tonight....

 

[woolfe9998]

Such a white knight. So admirable. All authoritarians at heart only want to protect whatever victim projection that they've built up in their minds.

The swedes are such a nice people and they welcomed in this guy and others like them out of the kindness of their values. It is odd how there could be a legit case for say, Mexican terrorism, and yet there is no Mexican terrorism. Or Vietnamese terrorism. Yet there is no Vietnamese terrorism. Culture and religion are the reason why. It isn't that Islam was victimized by the West and if you stop the victimization then the violence stops. It is more like Islam is fundamentally opposed to the West and so they dig up whatever grievances they can get their hands on to justify their fundamental opposition.

A better explanation is that this culture is fundamentally conservative, i.e. traditional, and they view the west as a threat to their way of life. Some of it has to do with actual incursions of the west into what they perceive as their territory (i.e. Israel). Some of it is just overblown paranoia. Look at how American conservatives want to maintain existing power structures where the white Christian male is master and how they fight hard against any sort of progressive change. Muslims (esp. the men) don't want westerners coming around with their modern notions of equality and human rights. What we're seeing in this struggle between the west and radical Islam is not dissimilar to struggles that go on between the left and right within western societies. It's a more violent struggle because these religious conservatives (i.e. the Muslims ones) are farther back in time than are our Christian conservatives.

Yes, I'm aware that the Jihadi's say it's all about their religion, and their holy book has a bunch of nasty quotes in it. But people don't use scripture as a literal blueprint for behavior to the extent that they claim to. It usually comes down to people interpreting it in a manner most consistent with how they already want to behave. People might blindly follow meaningless dogma like not eating pork, but a perfectly gentle human being doesn't become a killer just because you put the wrong book in his hand.

 

[agent00f]

I like Nawaz. He is proof that Islamists CAN be turned and NOT THROUGH VIOLENCE. He was treated as a human and not as the enemy. People like Nawaz are absolutely critical to the secularization of Islam.

The SPLC labeled him an anti-Muslim extremist after he tweeted a Jesus and Mo cartoon alluding to the prophet Muhammed. The Lantos Foundation for Human Rights & Justice has written a public letter to the SPLC to retract the listing. Nawaz has also been living under death threats since tweeting the cartoon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_Mo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maajid_Nawaz

Does anyone see a similar "conversion" for this guy who used to brag about calling blacks chimps and so on?:

Ding, ding, ding. Winner. Especially the bolded/underlined part.

Be critical of bad behavior/illegal activities (not race/creed/nationality/religious belief/etc.) of anyone, whether they are the minority or not, is not racist/bigot. At least there is someone here with a brain between the ears instead of manure.

Watch out how the forum fail troll will quote my post and begin his ranting and accusation and "soooooo rrrrrrraaaaacccciiiiiissssst". Just like clockwork.

Perhaps by putting degenerates in their palce we can even avoid the prison sentence.

 

[soulcougher73]

A better explanation is that this culture is fundamentally conservative, i.e. traditional, and they view the west as a threat to their way of life. Some of it has to do with actual incursions of the west into what they perceive as their territory (i.e. Israel). Some of it is just overblown paranoia. Look at how American conservatives want to maintain existing power structures where the white Christian male is master and how they fight hard against any sort of progressive change. Muslims (esp. the men) don't want westerners coming around with their modern notions of equality and human rights. What we're seeing in this struggle between the west and radical Islam is not dissimilar to struggles that go on between the left and right within western societies. It's a more violent struggle because these religious conservatives (i.e. the Muslims ones) are farther back in time than are our Christian conservatives.

Yes, I'm aware that the Jihadi's say it's all about their religion, and their holy book has a bunch of nasty quotes in it. But people don't use scripture as a literal blueprint for behavior to the extent that they claim to. It usually comes down to people interpreting it in a manner most consistent with how they already want to behave. People might blindly follow meaningless dogma like not eating pork, but a perfectly gentle human being doesn't become a killer just because you put the wrong book in his hand.

I think i would have to disagree with the bolded part. I think that book is way more powerful than you give it credit for. There is a reason religions use it for power. Because it works on simple minded people that need to be spoon fed an answer. And once they believe and are hooked they are yours to shepard around as you needed. Once you believe that your creator demands you blow up the infidels and you will be rewarded in heaven. This life on earth almost becomes meaningless. Its just a stop gap to the glory of God basically. To them at least.

Another thing is how entwined their religion and governance is. We have the luxury in the US to have them separate for the most part. Their religion is their law of the land in the middle east making it extremely difficult to secularize. Which basicially means you are one of us, or you are not. And if you are not. Well..good luck surviving long.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I think i would have to disagree with the bolded part. I think that book is way more powerful than you give it credit for. There is a reason religions use it for power. Because it works on simple minded people that need to be spoon fed an answer. And once they believe and are hooked they are yours to shepard around as you needed. Once you believe that your creator demands you blow up the infidels and you will be rewarded in heaven. This life on earth almost becomes meaningless. Its just a stop gap to the glory of God basically. To them at least.

Another thing is how entwined their religion and governance is. We have the luxury in the US to have them separate for the most part. Their religion is their law of the land in the middle east making it extremely difficult to secularize. Which basicially means you are one of us, or you are not. And if you are not. Well..good luck surviving long.

It's a combination thing IMO. Smart people who aren't 'tricked' by religious dogma end up using it for their own purposes (power, money, land, whatever). Those who either aren't smart enough, want to belong, never get educated, whatever, end up following those people and their teachings as part of a tribalism/alpha male complex.

 

[desura]

Ah yes, "white knight..." the time-honored response when you don't want to give a damn about people who don't look and act like you. Nope, can't just have empathy, has to be white knighting.

Also, your examples of how other cultures could have terrorism... make no sense. Mexicans don't have terrorism because their government, as dodgy as it is, is not totalitarian. Gang violence is likely a higher priority anyway. Vietnam had guerrilla warfare during its war, but there isn't exactly a lot internal dissent to its government or cultural values. However, the Middle East has plenty of factors at work: Shia vs. Sunni, many decades of oppression in some countries (some of it from outside nations, some from internal dictatorships), economic hardships prompted by wars... gee, it's as if being perpetually beaten down by one faction or another leaves you feeling angry and hopeless.

This is why I use the examples of Mexicans and Vietnamese. They are both non-white with different cultures. And yet, no terrorism.

It is possible to build up grievances along the lines of Mexican nationalism and use that to justify terrorism. Mexican society is complex, it has divides comparable to Sunni/Shia, decades of oppression, economic hardship, historical wrongs, the injustice of deportations, being beaten down, etc. If there were Mexican terrorists, you could make excuses and act like all it takes to solve it is to be nice to them and give them everything that they want... There is something within Islam which leaves its people clinging onto to old grievances in a way that doesn't exist in other 3rd world cultures. What I think it is is the Islamic prohibitions on human expression. Human portraits, singing, just talking about the past in a reasonable way is missing within Islamic cultures. So they don't have this humanistic outlet and so are exceedingly political.

 

[Orignal Earl]

The swedes are such a nice people and they welcomed in this guy and others like them out of the kindness of their values

He was supposed to be deported last year, went into hiding

I like Nawaz. He is proof that Islamists CAN be turned and NOT THROUGH VIOLENCE.

Six years in an Egyptian prison

 

[Orignal Earl]

There is something within Islam which leaves its people clinging onto to old grievances in a way that doesn't exist in other 3rd world cultures. What I think it is is the Islamic prohibitions on human expression. Human portraits, singing, just talking about the past in a reasonable way is missing within Islamic cultures. So they don't have this humanistic outlet and so are exceedingly political.

This always go back to you guys believing that Muslims follow Islam the way the Islamist do, when it's only a very tiny amount that practice that way

 

[woolfe9998]

I think i would have to disagree with the bolded part. I think that book is way more powerful than you give it credit for. There is a reason religions use it for power. Because it works on simple minded people that need to be spoon fed an answer. And once they believe and are hooked they are yours to shepard around as you needed. Once you believe that your creator demands you blow up the infidels and you will be rewarded in heaven. This life on earth almost becomes meaningless. Its just a stop gap to the glory of God basically. To them at least.

Another thing is how entwined their religion and governance is. We have the luxury in the US to have them separate for the most part. Their religion is their law of the land in the middle east making it extremely difficult to secularize. Which basicially means you are one of us, or you are not. And if you are not. Well..good luck surviving long.

Yeah, it's complicated. Culture and religion are intertwined. Often, religion is a tool to enforce and maintain the existing order and power structure. And the contents of the book are not irrelevant in relation to people's behavior. Yet if you look at people who join ISIS and kill for them, there is a suggestion of motivations having nothing to do with a book. The American and European teenagers who run off and join ISIS show a pattern of social isolation, drug problems and other issues prior to becoming radicalized. These conditions make them susceptible to radicalization and suggest a predisposition toward it. As for the locals who join, for many of them it is simply the most practical choice given the favors they earn and the persecution they avoid. I don't deny that the contents of holy books have some bearing on behavior. I do reject the simplistic notion that someone just reads a book they are supposed to believe in and becomes a killer. It just isn't that simple.

If Christian scriptures are less violent than are Muslim scriptures, and the contents of the books are what matters most, then Christians ought to have behaved consistently better than Muslims throughout history. Yet they have not. The better relative behavior of Christians is a more recent phenomenon. In the west, Christianity exists within a cultural wrapper which is modern, progressive and humanistic. With Islam, the cultural wrapper is none of those things. Transplant a Muslim to the west AND have that Muslim assimilate (as opposed to sticking with his own), and his interpretation of Islam will likely change, even though the book stays the same.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Often, religion is a tool to enforce and maintain the existing order and power structure.

To be clear, the religion is the guideline, the framework for it. Enforcement comes from authority (via a single figure or an authoritative regime), social pressure (from guilt to mob violence and everything in between), or brainwashing (something in-between). Often times the 'newcomers' (aka expendables) to a new religion are used as enforcers as well, which falls in line with authoritative regime and mob violence.

The rest of your post is completely accurate, and you can interchange the end-result of the targeted individuals with gangs, militant groups, and if you twist your head just enough, military forces.

 

[desura]

If Christian scriptures are less violent than are Muslim scriptures, and the contents of the books are what matters most, then Christians ought to have behaved consistently better than Muslims throughout history. Yet they have not. The better relative behavior of Christians is a more recent phenomenon. In the west, Christianity exists within a cultural wrapper which is modern, progressive and humanistic. With Islam, the cultural wrapper is none of those things. Transplant a Muslim to the west AND have that Muslim assimilate (as opposed to sticking with his own), and his interpretation of Islam will likely change, even though the book stays the same.

Disagree. Familiarity breeds contempt, as the saying goes. You are aware of the sins of the West because it is what you know and you take for granted the virtues. You probably know hardly anything about Islamic history aside from superficial virtues. This is akin to the Confederate "Lost Cause" which took hold in the aftermath of the Civil War. There is a temptation to think that the struggle is unnecessary and all it takes for the world to be right is for you to be a nice guy. Your being nice is under your control, while the Muslim being murderous is not.

There likely are fundamental factors within Christianity which leads the fundamentalists to be just tolerant enough of dissent for flourishing to occur, while within Islam the fundamentalists are so hell-bent on getting their way that they stamp out any human flourishing before it gets a chance to take a hold.