Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sheb]

I don't believe that Pegida is "reacting against religious violence". The NYE's Gropefest wasn't religiously motivated.

[k33n]

I'mma ask right now that people don't use Islamist.

Adding -ist unnecessarily to things to make them into positions, particularly positions that are implied by that suffix to be evil (AND WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD EXISTING WORD TO USE) is not appropriate debate ta...

It is actually of dire importance to distinguish between Islamists and muslims.

[Frumple]

... yeah, if you had paid the least bit of attention to what pediga actually does, you'd know most of their stuff isn't particularly about reacting against religious violence, though that's at times part of it/used as an excuse. They're anti-islam, not anti-religion, with a very heavy (and getting heavier as time passes) dose of racism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration sentiment. Calling them an anti-religious protest group is whitewashing the hell out of what they're about.

Don't even have to be in/near germany to pick up that much, they're pretty blatant about it.

[Sheb]

Well, even the fact that a group is anti-one religion rather than anti-all religion doesn't make it racist/xenophobic or whatever. Take the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain as an example of a decent such organization.

Actually, I don't really get why you seems to have such trouble understanding that one can be racist and xenophobic and anti-religion at the same time. Or use one of those to camouflage the other.

Take the French National Front. Officially, they're not even anti-Muslim, just anti-Islamist. But then you have the Mayor of Béziers deciding to ban kebabs from his city center.

[k33n]

I don't believe that Pegida is "reacting against religious violence". The NYE's Gropefest wasn't religiously motivated.

Do you mean the specific targeting of hundreds of non-muslim women? Also:http://www.dw.com/en/german-justice-minister-cologne-attacks-planned-in-advance/a-18969653
This is coming from Germany's own Justice Minister, if that counts as an official source.

... yeah, if you had paid the least bit of attention to what pediga actually does, you'd know most of their stuff isn't particularly about reacting against religious violence, though that's at times part of it/used as an excuse. They're anti-islam, not anti-religion, with a very heavy (and getting heavier as time passes) dose of racism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration sentiment. Calling them an anti-religious protest group is whitewashing the hell out of what they're about.

Don't even have to be in/near germany to pick up that much, they're pretty blatant about it.

There is nothing racist or illiberal in noticing that some cultures or religions are worse then others. Considering the contemporary events and world politics it is not unethical or right-wing to protest against the source of the most extreme right-wing views on earth today. Also, don't fool yourself that there are not a ton of people - centrists and liberals included - using the only outlet available to them to protest against what they see as religious violence.

Well, even the fact that a group is anti-one religion rather than anti-all religion doesn't make it racist/xenophobic or whatever. Take the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain as an example of a decent such organization.

Actually, I don't really get why you seems to have such trouble understanding that one can be racist and xenophobic and anti-religion at the same time. Or use one of those to camouflage the other.

Take the French National Front. Officially, they're not even anti-Muslim, just anti-Islamist. But then you have the Mayor of Béziers deciding to ban kebabs from his city center.

I agree.

[k33n]

duplicate

[Rolan7]

Wait, are you calling xenophobia 'disapproving of regressive elements in a culture'?

Well...  It's certainly closer to that than it is to "racism".  I guess it's inaccurate though since I'm not disapproving of all foreigners, or even most, just very worried about certain ones.  A xenophobe would fear or disapprove of foreigners in general, and/or because they're foreign.  Not just certain foreigners who think women are property.

I don't think that misuse is really on the same level as playing the race card in a discussion about culture, though.  Or trying to defend said misuse.

[Rolepgeek]

I'mma ask right now that people don't use Islamist.

Adding -ist unnecessarily to things to make them into positions, particularly positions that are implied by that suffix to be evil (AND WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD EXISTING WORD TO USE) is not appropriate debate ta...

It is actually of dire importance to distinguish between Islamists and muslims.

No. It is of dire importance to distinguish between Extremists/Radicals, Fundamentalists, and Moderates. Using Islamist in that way allows you to tar both the person you're speaking to and the religion with the label by the connection.

Also, believing some cultures or religions are better than others (the corollary to what you said, k33n) is actually a distinctly right-wing sentiment. It's not necessarily wrong.

Additionally, I have to wonder how many refugee women are being taken advantage of, and just no one cares enough to look until it happens to others. This might not be the case, but unless 'ooh we'll show those filthy French, taking in refugees, by committing crimes against our faith' is the thought process you believe is going on, rather than them just horrible people anyway and it's not some mass conspiracy...I mean, it might be. But...

[Sheb]

Do you mean the specific targeting of hundreds of non-muslim women? Also:http://www.dw.com/en/german-justice-minister-cologne-attacks-planned-in-advance/a-18969653
This is coming from Germany's own Justice Minister, if that counts as an official source.

Silly me, I missed the part where they were just following a fatwa and safely escorting all women wearing the hijab.

[Antsan]

When I see a group such as Pegida that only start to give a shit the moment they can blame an Arab for it,

You think Pegida is an anti-religious group?
Their leading figure posed as Hitler and publicly posted racist and generally xenophobic sentiments. Everyone who takes part in that movement and thinks they aren't supporting xenophobia is seriously deluded.
They're using the same tactics as the well-known far-right fascist idiots we had in Germany since ever, those insufferable people who use the phrase "I'm not a racist, but…"

They may actually genuinely care about what happened in Cologne, but they certainly use it for their own very definitely xenophobic agenda, and that is something that very well can be criticized.

Pegida isn't anti-Islam (and certainly not anti-religious in general), it's anti-immigration.

I'mma ask right now that people don't use Islamist.

Adding -ist unnecessarily to things to make them into positions, particularly positions that are implied by that suffix to be evil (AND WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD EXISTING WORD TO USE) is not appropriate debate tactics.

I use the word "Islamist" to denote fundamentalist/extremist Muslims. I use "Muslim" to denote Islamic people in general. I specifically do not want to use the word "Muslim" in a context where fundamentalism/extremism is implied, because that implication isn't true for Muslims in general, which is another reason why I suspect everyone who thinks we should fight Islam as a whole of xenophobia. History shows us that Islam is not inherently more or less violent than other religions.
I thought this use of the words "Muslim" and "Islamist" was ubiquitous.

I suppose I should ask this of everyone here; what would you have to see to change your mind? Everyone here, mind you. If the answer is "nothing could possibly do that" or "well I already know the facts so that question's pointless", I recommend you take a second look at your position.

I don't really know what I'd need to experience to change my mind about this topic. I know that talking about what's in the Qur'an won't convince me that Islam is the deciding factor in the problems we have with immigrants. I also won't be convinced by pointing out that their values are different from our own – I know that already.
Probably you'd need to show me something that is ubiquitous in their culture that, in it's core, violates something I thought was a value all humans had in common.

Furthermore, beliefs can change, but you typically don't control what you believe. What you profess to believe, how you act, yeah, you choose all those. "Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wants." Religion has to be changed, which usually takes both external and internal influence, from what (little) I know.

I though the general principle that is exemplified in conservation of matter/energy somehow entered the intuition of most people. But no, humans are somehow exempt from the way the interact with the universe, because Free Will or something.

... yeah, if you had paid the least bit of attention to what pediga actually does, you'd know most of their stuff isn't particularly about reacting against religious violence, though that's at times part of it/used as an excuse. They're anti-islam, not anti-religion, with a very heavy (and getting heavier as time passes) dose of racism, xenophobia, and anti-immigration sentiment. Calling them an anti-religious protest group is whitewashing the hell out of what they're about.

Don't even have to be in/near germany to pick up that much, they're pretty blatant about it.

There is nothing racist or illiberal in noticing that some cultures or religions are worse thean others. Considering the contemporary events and world politics it is not unethical or right-wing to protest against the source of the most extreme right-wing views on earth today. Also, don't fool yourself that there are not a ton of people - centrists and liberals included - using the only outlet available to them to protest against what they see as religious violence.

Yes, there are some and it's quite disconcerting, because they are inadvertently supporting actual neo-nazis. Pegida's driving motivations isn't so much concern as it is hate. If they were actually concerned, they'd maybe be damn scared about the rise of racism in Germany, but they aren't. They publicly display behavior know from WWII, such as burning books.
So they attract three kinds of people:
1. Nazis
2. People who don't care about whether Nazis get more power
3. People who don't understand history or social dynamics
I want to support none of them and there is plenty to criticize about each.

Wait, are you calling xenophobia 'disapproving of regressive elements in a culture'?

Well...  It's certainly closer to that than it is to "racism".  I guess it's inaccurate though since I'm not disapproving of all foreigners, or even most, just very worried about certain ones.  A xenophobe would fear or disapprove of foreigners in general, and/or because they're foreign.  Not just certain foreigners who think women are property.

I don't think that misuse is really on the same level as playing the race card in a discussion about culture, though.  Or trying to defend said misuse.

I'm not defending that misuse, I am attacking the notion of intentionally interpreting what someone else said based on that misuse.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

"Islamist" is a well accepted term for "Muslim who supports the full integration of Islam with social and political structures".

[k33n]

I'mma ask right now that people don't use Islamist.

Adding -ist unnecessarily to things to make them into positions, particularly positions that are implied by that suffix to be evil (AND WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD EXISTING WORD TO USE) is not appropriate debate ta...

It is actually of dire importance to distinguish between Islamists and muslims.

No. It is of dire importance to distinguish between Extremists/Radicals, Fundamentalists, and Moderates. Using Islamist in that way allows you to tar both the person you're speaking to and the religion with the label by the connection.

Wrong. What you have written are called adjectives. How dangerous is a fundamental humanist, or a radical Jain? An Islamist is someone who want to impose Sharia law on society, whether through force or democracy. You can be the most fundamental or radical (meaning... yes surprisingly the actual definition of the word radical, like muslim LGBT groups) muslim out there and still be for the law of the land. This is a fairly surreal conversation to have, but others have have clarified this enough. It may be useful for you to know that Islamist is a term used extensively in muslim majority countries.

Also, believing some cultures or religions are better than others (the corollary to what you said, k33n) is actually a distinctly right-wing sentiment. It's not necessarily wrong.

Wrong. Despite your wishes you will not be able to force most liberals out of the definition of the word.

Additionally, I have to wonder how many refugee women are being taken advantage of, and just no one cares enough to look until it happens to others. This might not be the case, but unless 'ooh we'll show those filthy French, taking in refugees, by committing crimes against our faith' is the thought process you believe is going on, rather than them just horrible people anyway and it's not some mass conspiracy...I mean, it might be. But...

Actually I cared about the refugee women getting raped constantly in the slums that Europe is erecting and abandoning. I was called a pig-dog right winger for that also.

[Antsan]

Do you really care that much about the label?

[k33n]

Do you really care that much about the label?

How can a pro-gay, pro-refugee, pro-immigration, pro-women's rights, anti-rape culture, anti-drug war, socialist, Liberal voter like myself ever be considered right wing? I comment because you guys are burning our house down and giving power to the right with your rhetoric.

[Antsan]

pro-refugee, pro-immigration,

Then how can you defend Pegida? It boggles the mind.

I comment because you guys are burning our house down and giving power to the right with your rhetoric.

Oh, we are? How exactly? What part of "our rhetoric" (as if there was such a thing, I'm pretty sure almost everyone here looks with at least a light squint at my posts) is so damaging to the liberal cause?
Has anyone here denied that doing something about what happened in Cologne is necessary? No.
Did anyone say that criticizing what some refugees do is wrong? No.
What is happening here is that you take valid criticism of stuff the right-wing is doing and applying it to everything they stand for instead of the thing actually criticized. I personally think that this is more effective in "burning down the house", because this is normally what right-wing nuts try to do to delegitimize leftist arguments.