Explosions at Zaventem Airport (Brussels airport)/Brussels metro

[Solmyr]

What Malthus said.

People are forgetting that the solutions proposed by the far right are not solutions to successfully integrating immigrants at all. They are solutions in the same vein as Hitler's solution to the Jewish problem. Thus, they should not even be considered as valid.

[Berkut]

No question that what Malthus is saying is right, the issue is that when it comes down to practical application of those ideas, we end up hearing a lot of "that sounds kind of racist" when any reasonable application of security is applied, and "that sounds totally racist!" when discussions inevitably come about on how to actually integrate "moderately" radical Islamic ideas into Western culture.

Stuff like "Yeah, you know, you are going to have to send your daughters to school, and you can't tell them they cannot get married, and Sharia law? Fuck that".

[Solmyr]

I don't know what left-wingers you've been listening to, but all the ones I know here, as well as all other people who are not racist assholes, pretty much agree with what you posted about integration.

[Berkut]

I don't know what left-wingers you've been listening to, but all the ones I know here, as well as all other people who are not racist assholes, pretty much agree with what you posted about integration.

You raise a really good point actually, that I suspect isn't really illuminated well in these discussions.

The vast majority of left wingers are not actually the problem.

But there is a very vocal minority who make a lot of noise about racism and intolerance who effectively mute the conversation, and a lot of that, I suspect, isn't even honestly held views, but rather tactical opposition to moderation and the "status quo".

The Chomsky's of the world, the Greenwalds, the people who demand that any acknowledgement of the religious roots of jihadism is exactly equivalent to racism I suspect aren't even really supporting religious radicalism so much as they are at war with Western culture, and the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

I think this is akin to those dumbasses on US campuses who now insist that "micro-aggression" is a thing, and that their demand for "safe spaces" equates to a right to punish and restrict free speech is the same kind of phenomenon, where the radical extreme of a view point is not shared by the rest of that overall group (in both cases this is the liberal left), yet the group seems unable to police their own in a reasonable fashion, since they are easily then targeted as part of the same problem.

It is like trying to be the person to stand up in 1921 and say that the pogroms in Russia have gone too far, or being a slightly less radical French revolutionary in 1794. The response from the radicals is to put you up against the wall or under the guillotine as well. Yesterdays radicals become today's reactionaries.

This is why it is dangerous to tolerate that kind of suppression of thought. It moves the bar to a very, very scary place - to one extreme or the other.

[Malthus]

No question that what Malthus is saying is right, the issue is that when it comes down to practical application of those ideas, we end up hearing a lot of "that sounds kind of racist" when any reasonable application of security is applied, and "that sounds totally racist!" when discussions inevitably come about on how to actually integrate "moderately" radical Islamic ideas into Western culture.

Stuff like "Yeah, you know, you are going to have to send your daughters to school, and you can't tell them they cannot get married, and Sharia law? Fuck that".

I don't see it as a problem any different from the sometimes-painful compromises made with other ethnic and religious communities: some stuff is rightfully non-negotiable; other stuff isn't.

In the US, for example, lots of people from fringe Christian groups are allowed to "home school"; reasonably arguments may be made at what the ambit of this accommodation ought to be (or if it should even exist). Then, apply across the board, to Christians, Jews, Muslims alike.

Thinks like personal choices in marriage and 'honour killings' when they are exercised are, obviously, beyond the pale of compromise or accommodation.

OTOH, stuff like 'wearing in public a funny hat' is something we ought to compromise on all the time: stuff like Sikhs wearing a turban with their Mountie uniform. That helps bind the Sikh community to Canada, makes them "us", and has no real downside.

Sharia law - well, we had a controversy here in Canada about "Sharia law", but it was bullshit (highly misleading to non-lawyers). It was all about someone setting up an Arbitration centre using "Sharia Law", not someone attempting to actually impose it as the law of the land. The latter is obviously a no-go. The former is just an issue about freedom of contract (you can set up an ADR centre based on whatever you want, ordinarily, as long as it meets some basics of procedural fairness - Christian and Jewish ones have been operating for years without anyone noticing or caring. There are legitimate issues with using ADR in family law settings, just as there are with any sort of family law contract - but otherwise, not). 

[derspiess]

What Malthus said.

People are forgetting that the solutions proposed by the far right are not solutions to successfully integrating immigrants at all. They are solutions in the same vein as Hitler's solution to the Jewish problem. Thus, they should not even be considered as valid.

Bullshit.  Cutting off immigration from certain countries is not the same as gassing Jews.

[Berkut]

Thinks like personal choices in marriage and 'honour killings' when they are exercised are, obviously, beyond the pale of compromise or accommodation.

Well, this is the key, I think.

There are the dicsussions around the margins where it becomes a difficult topic. Sure, the obvious stuff is obvious. You can't tolerate honor killing.

But can you tolerate wearing head scarves? Probably.

Can you tolerate people requiring their own children to dress in total head to toe concealing clothing in public? What if their children don't want to - can you tolerate a father refusing to send his daughter to school because she will take it off?

There are a lot of things at the margins that are not so obvious. They will involve difficult discussions.

And it seems like the moment one of those discussion start, you get this vocal minority screeching "RACISM!!!!!" if you don't line up with their views.

THAT is the problem.

Hell, we have an easy example right here in Languish. Look at the response to my posts in regards to the guy who missed a flight because some dumbass thought he might be texting with ISIS.

That immediately went to "OMG BERKUT IS A RACIST!".

It is just such an easy and effective rhetorical tool.

[Scipio]

If only the people in 2) limited themselves to "saying it must stop", you might have a point.

Yeah. Pretty much everyone across the political spectrum is saying it must stop. Firebombing refugee shelters and organizing nazi street patrols is not quite the same thing, though.

What are the solutions the non-right-wing parties propose?

Behavioral profiling.

[Razgovory]

Is anyone surprised by any of this? This thread will go just like the Paris once - cant wait for Raz's "contribution". 

I'm beginning to think you don't like me.

[Solmyr]

And it seems like the moment one of those discussion start, you get this vocal minority screeching "RACISM!!!!!" if you don't line up with their views.

THAT is the problem.

Actually, I think racism is a bigger problem than screaming about racism.

[viper37]

More from the religion of peace?

they have as much to do with Islam as Charles Manson with America.

Yep.  "ISIL is not Islamic."

Charles Manson was American. Therefore, he was American.
The Nazis certainly were working for Germany's best future, in their mind. It follows that all Germans are collectively guilty of genocide.

The fact that someone claims to be from Islam and act on Islam behalf does not make it reprensetative of all Islam.
When a US preacher says gays should be killed, does it mean Christianity wants all gays to die?  Even when Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee deliver a speech at the same place, in front of the same people, does it mean American politicians wants gays to be sent to the gaz chambers?  These Republican politicians certainly claim to speak for America.  They were elected by Americans.  Therefore, all Republicans wants gays do die, preferably in the most horrible death to atone for their sins?  Is that what you are telling me, Derspiess?

When a nutjob bombs an abortion clinic and his lauded for his actions by other Christians, and since we know they acted in the name of Christ, does it mean being Christian you are guilty by association with these people that commit crimes and promote violence in the name of the God you share?

There are multiple problems with Islam, but there are problems with other religions too.  There have been lots of violence done in the name of Jesus Christ in the past.  Catholics and Protestants Priests have committed several abuses toward children in the name of Christ.  Indians were massacred in the name of Christ.  Survivors were deported, stripped of their cultural identity and beaten in the name of Jesus Christ.

From my point of view, if I were to use the same rationale as you do, it seems all Christians share this belief that children are meant to be abused.  I am not aware of many Christians who renounced their Faith after these allegations were made public.  In the past, when a child complained to his very religious parents he was abused by a priest, the child was beaten by his religious parent in the name of Christ.  A priest could do no wrong.  How many Catholics protested in the street, asking for the Pope to resign when the first mass scandals of pedophilia and the Clergy cover up were made public?  Not many.  How many Catholics publicly went out and called for the disbandment of the Clergy?

The reaction, as with any group of people whose members commit atrocious crime was the same: claim it was the act of misguided individuals and ask that these people be punished, but that they did not speak or act in their name.

Why would it be different for muslims?  Why should we hold them to an higher standard than our own?  Should a Shiite muslim be concerned by ISIS actions?  Why would an ISIS member listen to the criticism of an heretic?
I was baptized and confirmed as a Catholic.  Should the actual Pope listen to my criticism of his religion?  Why would the Bishop excomunicating raped 9 year old girls and their parents care about what I say when he acts in the name of Jesus Christ?

Religious fanatics are totally irrational.  The moment you go down that path, you don't care about anything else.  You have the True religion, others are morons.  Just like Democrats, from your point of view, I guess.

We are certainly too tolerant toward radical islam and its symbol, and we let these people poison the life of moderate muslims.  Then, after a while, we reap what we sow.  Europe was way too tolerant for way too long and its gonna take at least two or three generation before they can solve the problem of radical islam.  By this time, we will be the one with the problems, with our idiotic policies.

The problem is religious fanatics, not religion.  Religion can be good or bad.  Some will tell you it's only good, others it's only bad.  I'm not gonna remake that debate, I've chose my own path.  How we react and differentiate religious fanatics from other religious people is what's important.  For this, people like Jacob are just as dangerous and idiotic as people like Martinus.  Bombing all muslim countries to kill civilians like your favorite Presidential candidate has suggested is no more a good option than turning a blind eye to the radicalization of young muslims and beachheads of fundamentalism in our countries.  Religious zealots, of all religions, must be fought so that everyone else can live in peace.  Deporting/arresting productive citizens will not solve the problem.  Shutting our borders to all muslim immigration will simply ensure a larger pool of recruits for ISIS-type.  Killing the families of suspected terrorists won't do shit.  But fighting radicals at home and preventing them from spreading their hate, this will eventually go a long way.

[viper37]

Thinks like personal choices in marriage and 'honour killings' when they are exercised are, obviously, beyond the pale of compromise or accommodation.

Well, this is the key, I think.

There are the dicsussions around the margins where it becomes a difficult topic. Sure, the obvious stuff is obvious. You can't tolerate honor killing.

But can you tolerate wearing head scarves? Probably.

Can you tolerate people requiring their own children to dress in total head to toe concealing clothing in public? What if their children don't want to - can you tolerate a father refusing to send his daughter to school because she will take it off?

There are a lot of things at the margins that are not so obvious. They will involve difficult discussions.

And it seems like the moment one of those discussion start, you get this vocal minority screeching "RACISM!!!!!" if you don't line up with their views.

THAT is the problem.

Hell, we have an easy example right here in Languish. Look at the response to my posts in regards to the guy who missed a flight because some dumbass thought he might be texting with ISIS.

That immediately went to "OMG BERKUT IS A RACIST!".

It is just such an easy and effective rhetorical tool.

Thinks like personal choices in marriage and 'honour killings' when they are exercised are, obviously, beyond the pale of compromise or accommodation.

Well, this is the key, I think.

There are the dicsussions around the margins where it becomes a difficult topic. Sure, the obvious stuff is obvious. You can't tolerate honor killing.

But can you tolerate wearing head scarves? Probably.

Can you tolerate people requiring their own children to dress in total head to toe concealing clothing in public? What if their children don't want to - can you tolerate a father refusing to send his daughter to school because she will take it off?

There are a lot of things at the margins that are not so obvious. They will involve difficult discussions.

And it seems like the moment one of those discussion start, you get this vocal minority screeching "RACISM!!!!!" if you don't line up with their views.

THAT is the problem.

See, on this we agree.  Before we arrive to the honor killing, there is a whole lot of stuff going on in the community that preludes to that.

[The Minsky Moment]

There are a lot of things at the margins that are not so obvious. They will involve difficult discussions.

Yes

And it seems like the moment one of those discussion start, you get this vocal minority screeching "RACISM!!!!!" if you don't line up with their views.

THAT is the problem.

It's A problem, hardly THE problem. 

[Eddie Teach]

Even when Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee deliver a speech at the same place, in front of the same people, does it mean American politicians wants gays to be sent to the gaz chambers?  These Republican politicians certainly claim to speak for America.  They were elected by Americans.  Therefore, all Republicans wants gays do die, preferably in the most horrible death to atone for their sins?  Is that what you are telling me, Derspiess?

This would be a better argument if Cruz and Huckabee said anything like that.

[Berkut]

More from the religion of peace?

they have as much to do with Islam as Charles Manson with America.

Yep.  "ISIL is not Islamic."

Charles Manson was American. Therefore, he was American.
The Nazis certainly were working for Germany's best future, in their mind. It follows that all Germans are collectively guilty of genocide.

The fact that someone claims to be from Islam and act on Islam behalf does not make it reprensetative of all Islam.
When a US preacher says gays should be killed, does it mean Christianity wants all gays to die?  Even when Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee deliver a speech at the same place, in front of the same people, does it mean American politicians wants gays to be sent to the gaz chambers?  These Republican politicians certainly claim to speak for America.  They were elected by Americans.  Therefore, all Republicans wants gays do die, preferably in the most horrible death to atone for their sins?  Is that what you are telling me, Derspiess?

When a nutjob bombs an abortion clinic and his lauded for his actions by other Christians, and since we know they acted in the name of Christ, does it mean being Christian you are guilty by association with these people that commit crimes and promote violence in the name of the God you share?

Who are you arguing with?

I don't know anyone who has said any of those things.