Page 14 of 20 FirstFirst ...
4
12
13
14
15
16
... LastLast
  1. #261
    Quote Originally Posted by Malaky View Post
    What part of "Islam is not a race" you didn't get?
    Yet again, the part where "racist" has become the umbrella term for "xenophobe." What part of language drift didn't you get?
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  2. #262
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    But for some reason people ignore that the Islamic violence and Islamic political movements are specifically Islamic. Their content is Islamic. Their rhetoric is Islamic. Some I've argued with take this approach for white nationalism, for which it is so obvious its content is white supremacist, but do not do so for Islam
    Because you're making a bullshit false equivalence.

    Nobody denies that Islamic terrorism has a faith-based element. What's refuted is that the religion itself is contributing to terrorism, or radicalizing members. It's denied for the same reason making the same argument with regards to Christianity, while pointing at the IRA or Lord's Resistance Army, would be wrongheaded. Because it's naked prejudice, and has no bearing on the actual facts, and does not help you understand anything; it's an attempt to attack billions of innocent people for the crimes of terrorists which they had absolutely no part in whatsoever.

    And it's nothing like white nationalism, which is attacked for the specific elements all members share, the inherent racism and prejudice that you necessarily must profess, to profess white nationalism. The same way you can freely condemn a Nazi for "being a Nazi"; being a Nazi is an awful thing, in and of itself.

    What you folks are trying to do is shift "being a Muslim" into that same kind of category, and that is hateful and baseless prejudice.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Raybourne View Post
    I wonder, at the time of those attacks, if people argued "they just did it because of geopolitics and conflict". It should be obvious their motivations included religious ones.
    Feel free to pull up cases where, in the aftermath of McVeigh's bombing, people were calling for banning Christian immigration to the USA because it was "dangerous".

    Nobody pretended those people weren't Christian. They just acknowledged the simple truth that they did not speak for nor represent other Christians. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp, unless you're pushing a prejudiced agenda.


  3. #263
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    And it's nothing like white nationalism, which is attacked for the specific elements all members share, the inherent racism and prejudice that you necessarily must profess, to profess white nationalism. The same way you can freely condemn a Nazi for "being a Nazi"; being a Nazi is an awful thing, in and of itself.

    What you folks are trying to do is shift "being a Muslim" into that same kind of category, and that is hateful and baseless prejudice.
    Ok first of all, there's no hateful emotion coming from me. We're having a disagreement and you can't engage with the subject without ad hominem and hypocrisy. Maybe stop and actually read people's statements instead of "making up shit" as you said.

    It seems pretty obvious that Islamic terrorism having a faith based element is the same as the religion being a part of it. Someone could really only deny such a self-truth if they had some political agenda that needs to ignore facts presented against it.

    You wouldn't care because you have the same ignorance you accuse others of, but white nationalists are simply people who want to live in a country of white people. There's no "necessary" hatred of other races.

    Feel free to pull up cases where, in the aftermath of McVeigh's bombing, people were calling for banning Christian immigration to the USA because it was "dangerous".

    Nobody pretended those people weren't Christian. They just acknowledged the simple truth that they did not speak for nor represent other Christians. It isn't a difficult concept to grasp, unless you're pushing a prejudiced agenda.
    More deflection, okay. You weren't claiming christian fundies were acting out just because of geopolitics. Mental illness? Would be pretty funny at this point.

  4. #264
    Quote Originally Posted by Kangodo View Post
    And racial discrimination, aka racism, includes your hatred towards Islam.


    People?
    Our far-right parties started to campaign around it the exact same day.
    They almost had an orgasm at a terrorist attack two days before the election.
    Islam is not a race.

  5. #265
    Quote Originally Posted by solvexx View Post
    Islam is not a race.
    Language drift exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  6. #266
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemos daemonium View Post
    So then it’s not the religion it’s how one interacts with said religion. If the religion it self was the problem and not ones interpretation it would be a much more wide spread isssue. No one but extremist follow the literal word of any religion so the question is why does this one have so many more extremist then other religions.
    No, it is religion. You can't discount religion just because some people don't enact the murder that said book asks their practitioners to take part in.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Razzako View Post
    Sigh.

    I guess it's too hard to understand broad definitions change all the time.
    Except that racism is not a broad definition. It is a succinct definition. Discrimination based on race. You can not misappropriate a word because it suits your narrative. If someone were to say they dislike religion, but even if they did not tie religion to race, by your definition, the person is racist.

    Stop labelling people who dislike religion racists.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Language drift exists.
    So by your definition all atheists are racists?

  7. #267
    Quote Originally Posted by solvexx View Post
    So by your definition all atheists are racists?
    Great non-sequitur. What's the next one? Let me know when you realize we're not still speaking latin.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  8. #268
    Quote Originally Posted by solvexx View Post
    Except that racism is not a broad definition. It is a succinct definition. Discrimination based on race. You can not misappropriate a word because it suits your narrative. If someone were to say they dislike religion, but even if they did not tie religion to race, by your definition, the person is racist.

    Stop labelling people who dislike religion racists.
    Did you read the rest of the discussion?

  9. #269
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Great non-sequitur. What's the next one? Let me know when you realize we're not still speaking latin.
    If a person dislikes all religion, including Islam, your definition defines that person as a racist. Show me the logic as to how it does not.

  10. #270
    Quote Originally Posted by solvexx View Post
    No, it is religion. You can't discount religion just because some people don't enact the murder that said book asks their practitioners to take part in.
    "Some people?"
    Like the tiny fraction of the over 95% of the world's population?
    I'd say the extreme radical element can be discounted from religion.

  11. #271
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    "Some people?"
    Like the tiny fraction of the over 95% of the world's population?
    I'd say the extreme radical element can be discounted from religion.
    So you advocate for ignoring the fact that their "holy book" advocates for their followers to commit murder?

  12. #272
    Quote Originally Posted by solvexx View Post
    So you advocate for ignoring the fact that their "holy book" advocates for their followers to commit murder?
    It's ignored all the time for centuries now...maybe you should join the rest of the world in keeping up with the times.

  13. #273
    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowferal View Post
    It's ignored all the time for centuries now...maybe you should join the rest of the world in keeping up with the times.
    Ignored, really? The fundamental part of their religion is fueling wars across the world as you and I speak.

  14. #274
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Language drift exists.
    Do you have a point?

    People find something they dislike and then overuse it, e.g. fascism, racism, nazis, etc.
    Those words then lose their original meaning - and just become throw-away words that no-one pays any real attention to.

    If your argument is based on diluting the language you don't have any argument.

  15. #275
    Quote Originally Posted by solvexx View Post
    If a person dislikes all religion, including Islam, your definition defines that person as a racist. Show me the logic as to how it does not.
    Let me know when you realize that being an athiest doesn't mean you hate and discriminate against people who aren't.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Forogil View Post
    If your argument is based on diluting the language you don't have any argument.
    My argument is that "hating muslims isn't racist" is something ignorant people say when they don't have a justification for their xenophobia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  16. #276
    Quote Originally Posted by solvexx View Post
    Ignored, really? The fundamental part of their religion is fueling wars across the world as you and I speak.
    Perhaps the poster meant that similar statements in other books are ignored, and failed to imagine that it isn't the same everywhere.

  17. #277
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Yet again, the part where "racist" has become the umbrella term for "xenophobe." What part of language drift didn't you get?
    The part where this new "umbrella term" you're claiming is actually accepted by the people, I guess.
    Because no, you don't get to misuse terms far and wide and then just use that prolonged misuse as proof of a new "language drift".
    You're just a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about and has been wrong for a long time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes, I think a company should be legally allowed to refuse to serve black people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Right now the left is fact based

  18. #278
    Quote Originally Posted by Malaky View Post
    The part where this new "umbrella term" is actually accepted by the people, I guess.
    Because no, you don't get to misuse terms far and wide and then just use that prolonged misuse as proof of a new "language drift".
    You're just a guy who doesn't know what he's talking about and has been wrong for a long time.
    Sure man. People totally don't use the word that way.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rudol Von Stroheim View Post
    I do not need to play the role of "holier than thou". I'm above that..

  19. #279
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Language drift exists.
    But you don't get to decide when those happen. I might go and pretend that the new name for apples is "cheese" and keep calling apples "cheese" for years, but that wouldn't be proof of a language drift, that's just me not knowing what the heck I'm talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    Sure man. People totally don't use the word that way.
    Prolonged ignorance isn't a justification to make that ignorance as the new rule.
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes, I think a company should be legally allowed to refuse to serve black people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    Right now the left is fact based

  20. #280
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripster42 View Post
    My argument is that "hating muslims isn't racist" is something ignorant people say when they don't have a justification for their xenophobia.
    You are diluting the language by mixing so many different things in a non-nuanced view.

    Stating the most deaths by terrorism (as the ones in the Netherlands that are the subject of this thread) are caused by muslims is a fact, and doesn't imply a hatred of muslims. When a shia muslim speak of fear of being attacked by IS it doesn't make sense to describe it as "hatred of muslims".

    And using xenophobia to describe hate of muslims is inaccurate. Xenophobia can just mean fear or distrust of others; and if someone is against muslims it doesn't necessarily imply that they are against others; or even that muslims are "foreign" to them.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •