Explosions at Zaventem Airport (Brussels airport)/Brussels metro

[derspiess]

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.

Hey, man.  I was agreeing with you and using a choice quote from our awesome president to back you up.

[Jacob]

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.

It sounds like BB's comment really got to you.

What do you reckon? We should not have discussions of how potential responses to terrorism may or may not be racist, for fear that it empowers racists?

[Josquius]

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?

I was just thinking today that it's curious that when this sort of thing happens it's always the right screaming about it being the lefts problem, how could we be so stupid, etc....

Yet you never see the far more valid criticism that the right is to blame. It was they who destroyed the working class and turned these estates into pits of despair. Full of angry young men looking for something to latch onto.

[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.

It sounds like BB's comment really got to you.

What do you reckon? We should not have discussions of how potential responses to terrorism may or may not be racist, for fear that it empowers racists?

No, we should avoid using loaded language like "racism" altogether when it comes to reasonable responses to how do deal with security.

The odds of some particular policy being motivated by actual racism are exceedingly small, and the bar should be very high when individuals desire to whip out the racism card. You should, as an individual, be very careful before accusing someone else in particular of being motivated by racism.

Instead, the bar is incredibly low - it is used as a matter of routine as a way to shut down the conversation, because it is so easy and effective.

[Berkut]

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?

I was just thinking today that it's curious that when this sort of thing happens it's always the right screaming about it being the lefts problem, how could we be so stupid, etc....

I don't think anyone should really care about what the right says - we know they are full of shit.

What bothers me is that even liberals get shouted down by other liberals if you don't toe the radical line on racism, that appears to be that anything that "seems racist" IS racist, and we don't even need to bother considering whether or not it actually is racism.

You see people on college campuses in the US losing their jobs because someone found "micro-aggression" in their speech, for God's sake. It is like the left has lost the ability to respond rationally - it is all either with us or under the guillotine you go...

[Jacob]

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

No it didn't.

BB, that notorious left-winger, said one of the positions you articulated "sounded kind of racist." You took offense, and the retard-brigade jumped in to blow it out of all proportion.

If, as you, Malthus, and I agree, we should avoid racism on one hand but we should take all reasonable security precautions on the other hand it is likely that some of the proposed approaches could shade into racism. In some instances it could be a reasonable compromise, in some instances upon examination there's no racist implication after all, and on others it could end up that after a sober second examination we realize that the proposed solution is kind of racist without any worthwhile benefit.

It seems to me that if we actually want to avoid empowering the far-lefty"crying racism at everything" types (of which BB is not one, IMO) we should be able to discuss whether something potentially "sounds kind of racist" without it shutting down the conversation.

[The Minsky Moment]

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

No - it's what was done to the Jews before they were gassed.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't think Berkut is racist, but I can't figure out why he is soft on the Manson family.

[The Brain]

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

No it didn't.

BB, that notorious left-winger, said one of the positions you articulated "sounded kind of racist." You took offense, and the retard-brigade jumped in to blow it out of all proportion.

If, as you, Malthus, and I agree, we should avoid racism on one hand but we should take all reasonable security precautions on the other hand it is likely that some of the proposed approaches could shade into racism. In some instances it could be a reasonable compromise, in some instances upon examination there's no racist implication after all, and on others it could end up that after a sober second examination we realize that the proposed solution is kind of racist without any worthwhile benefit.

It seems to me that if we actually want to avoid empowering the far-lefty"crying racism at everything" types (of which BB is not one, IMO) we should be able to discuss whether something potentially "sounds kind of racist".

Is there a statement that doesn't potentially sound kind of racist?

[Jacob]

Is there a statement that doesn't potentially sound kind of racist?

Yes.

[Josquius]

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?

I was just thinking today that it's curious that when this sort of thing happens it's always the right screaming about it being the lefts problem, how could we be so stupid, etc....

I don't think anyone should really care about what the right says - we know they are full of shit.

What bothers me is that even liberals get shouted down by other liberals if you don't toe the radical line on racism, that appears to be that anything that "seems racist" IS racist, and we don't even need to bother considering whether or not it actually is racism.

You see people on college campuses in the US losing their jobs because someone found "micro-aggression" in their speech, for God's sake. It is like the left has lost the ability to respond rationally - it is all either with us or under the guillotine you go...

These faux left American kids with their appropriation and other "I'm a nationalist and I just don't know it" nonsense aren't really representative of the broader left though.

[Legbiter]

 

[Jaron]

Our best weapon in the fight against radical Islam is compassion. Right viper?

[Berkut]

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

No it didn't.

BB, that notorious left-winger, said one of the positions you articulated "sounded kind of racist."

No, I was talking about garbon's thread, where I was told to "check my white privilege" because I didn't think some guy accidently being taken of a plane and missing his flight was a terrible injustice.

In this case, I don't think BB even thought that what was being discussed was racist - and he certainly isn't a member of the far left. I do consider him a nominal member of the supposed liberal left in this context, as someone who cares about human rights, liberal ideals, etc., etc.

You took offense, and the retard-brigade jumped in to blow it out of all proportion.

Not offense per se, but I see it as a typical reaction that shuts down conversation because the not so middle of the road has succeeded in turning even the hint of racism into something that destroys careers, regardless of whether it is real or not.

Now we see even people like Beebs shying away from anything that might even possibly sound kind of racist to people who are desperate to find racism where it doesn't exist. We've modulated our language to appease to the most agenda driven amongst us.

If, as you, Malthus, and I agree, we should avoid racism on one hand but we should take all reasonable security precautions on the other hand it is likely that some of the proposed approaches could shade into racism.

I actually do NOT agree that "some proposed solutions might shade into racism". There is no *solution* that could be racist, because if you are using racism to define your solutions, you aren't looking for solutions to begin with, you are looking for a way to use security concerns to step on people you don't like.

And I simply do not buy that that is happening to any real degree - that organizations like US Homeland security is using concerns about terrorism to engage their racist desires to treat Muslims like shit.

In some instances it could be a reasonable compromise, in some instances upon examination there's no racist implication after all, and on others it could end up that after a sober second examination we realize that the proposed solution is kind of racist without any worthwhile benefit.

The reality though is that the moment someone says "that sounds kind of racist" the discussion ends, and what is more, in some cases people lose their jobs or are forced to resign because they suggested that maybe people should not be so quick to be offended.

It seems to me that if we actually want to avoid empowering the far-lefty"crying racism at everything" types (of which BB is not one, IMO) we should be able to discuss whether something potentially "sounds kind of racist" without it shutting down the conversation.

Agreed, but sadly that is not the case. In today's world, the hint of racism is too dangerous to allow, so the best way to turn off actual public discourse is to make an accusation of racism.

I can assure you that I would never take this position at work, for example, if it came up. Because I know that there are only one acceptable response to any hint of racism, and that is total and complete rejection of anything that "seems kind of racist".

We are getting pretty far afield at this point though...

[Grallon]

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

Don't try to reason with these people.  As much as they would like to continue denying the problem, events such as this new attack keep conspiring against their idyllic worldview.  So now they've started yet another round of hand wringing about 'what to do!?!' (cue little bleating squeels).

When people demand real solutions they're told to suck it up and live with it because nothing can be done...

If islamism is the disease then Islam is the vector and all Muslims are carriers - even if most of them will never develop the symptoms.   And it is certainly not the ridiculous 'multikulti' group therapy Malthus is advocating that will work, not when Europe is being overrun.



G.