Originally Posted by
tehealadin
Well this isn't true. They come from different countries. Whiteness isn't a monoculture. Nor is it a belief system. Just because someone shared the same physical characteristics as a monster doesn't mean they share responsibility for that persons actions. Though this is a point that now seems lost in some quarters of the left (and indeed right, though it was always the case with the far right). Your point would be better served if someone had a choice in their skin colour, and that skin colour was a system of beliefs. And if people were taking specific parts of this belief system to justify and act out mass murder and rape, then I think yes, if people in that system fail to denounce and ask questions, and to criticise these aspects of their belief system which give license to murderers to murder, then they are part of the problem (note- not responsible, the only ones responsible are the ones who commit the acts), as there is evidently a cancerous aspect in their belief system that is killing people and they are not doing anything to remove it.
You are responsible for the company you keep, and if you express sympathy for mass murderers and gangsters who once had a legitimate cause, and refuse to acknowledge that an organisation was responsible for it, in this case, the IRA, then you are an apologist for that group, and as someone who wants to lead a country that has been victim to attacks by this organisation, then asking Corbyn to condemn the actions of this group isn't unreasonable. We know who committed the IRA bombings. Refusing to criticise the group who carried them out is an affront to the victims, and if you want to lead and represent those victims and their families, then you have a problem.
You have no say in your blood type. You do have a say in your religion. Also, your blood type is a physical characteristic, not a belief system, apples and oranges. Your point would stand better if you had a say in your blood type, and you could change your blood type at any time. And then, people with a specific blood type, reliably produced a small amount of people who went out and committed acts of mass murder, well, we would start asking questions about this blood type. We would want to know what it is about this blood type that reliably produces mass murderers on a much larger scale than other blood types. Why is it that suicide bombing is almost exclusive (if not exclusive) to people with this blood type? We know that by looking at the numbers, the vast proportion of people with this blood type don't do this, however we also know that in places where this blood type is in the majority, there is much higher sympathy for acts of mass murder, and it is less likely to be condemned than in other places. Why is it that people with blood type A don't go and do this kind of thing, with the kind of consistency that people with 0 do? We would recognise that there is clearly something in particular with blood type 0, and due to the suffering caused, we need to look into it.
The problem is, some people would denounce all people with this blood type, and say we need to send them back (where to, this is never made clear), and advocate for removing rights for people with this blood type, before they have even done anything wrong. And in response to this, others would demand that no questions be asked at all, and label anyone who asks the questions a dangerous bigot who is doing more harm than the mass murderers, and that besides, if you ask the questions about this blood type, the people with it might go and commit an act of mass murder, so any insinuation that there is a link with this blood type and violence needs to be nipped in the bud, in order to prevent violence being committed by people of this blood type. And the situation becomes a mess.
You can still ask questions without labeling everyone. You can still criticise ideas and ideology without making broad sweeping statements about those who subscribe to them. Ideas should not be given special protection, they need to be subject to scrutiny. We got rid of blasphemy laws in this country, and for a very good reason, and now it seems that de facto (more socially enforced than anything else) blasphemy laws (rules might be a better word) for one particular religion is becoming a reality.
Centuries ago, Christians reliably committed acts of murder in Europe, in the name of the faith. They took and twisted aspects of their holy books to justify this (parts that contradict other parts, which they conveniently ignore, a strange thing for God to be so inconsistent, but this must just be a limitation of my feeble mortal mind), using the verses that give them justification for the worst acts, the violence was already in them, this was just the green light. This no longer happens. Why? Questions were asked. Questions that were once punishable by death. And over time, more and more people asked them, and more importantly, more and more people answered. And more people listened. And we still have Christianity. However it cannot do the kind of harm that it used to. As some of the really bad ideas that it contained were defeated. This has to be the same with Islam.
Granted, the Enlightenment didn't happen against a back drop of the far right, willing to tar all Christians with the same brush, and act out against any Christian and advocate for denying them rights. This is a problem that compounds things. And I don't shit on the left for trying to combat these people. I worry that they will throw the baby out with the bath water.
Recent Blue Posts
The War Within Alpha Development Notes
Professions Update: Concentration in The War Within
New heritage armors (Draenei and Troll) are not acceptable
MMO-Champion
Recent Forum Posts
Pandora's box is wide open and UK will have to live with it for years to come.
Reply With Quote
