Languish.org

QuoteWest End Boy
Adam Shatz


Before he went on his mass killing spree in 2011, Anders Behring Breivik was a regular at the Palace Grill in Oslo West. He looked harmless: another blond man trying to chat up women at the bar. 'He came across as someone with a business degree,' one woman recalled, 'one of those West End boys in very conservative clothes.' Indeed he had tried his hand at business, though he'd never completed a degree, or much of anything else. And he was a West End boy, a diplomat's son. Yet there was the book he said he was writing, a 'masterwork' in a 'genre the world has never seen before'. He refused to say what it was about, only that it was inspired by 'novels about knights from the Middle Ages'. He did little to hide his obsessions. One night in late 2010, he was at the Palace Grill when a local TV celebrity walked in. Breivik launched into a speech about the Muslim plot against Norway, and about the Knights Templar. The bouncers threw him out. On the street, he said to the celebrity: 'In one year's time, I'll be three times as famous as you.'

This story appears in Aage Borchgrevink's superb book, and it plays like a scene from a horror film because we know the barfly will make good on his promise. Breivik was hard at work on 2083: A European Declaration of Independence, a 1518-page screed exposing the Muslim plot to conquer Christendom. In large part a compendium of extracts from counter-jihadist websites, 2083 was posted online on the day of the attacks under the name 'Andrew Berwick', one of Breivik's several aliases. The signs of Europe's creeping Islamisation were everywhere, he argued, from Bosnian independence to the spread of mosques in Oslo. Muslim men were having their way with European women, while declaring their own women off-limits to European men. Breivik and his fellow white Norwegians were 'first-generation dhimmis' – a term for non-Muslim minorities under Ottoman rule which, like most of his ideas, he'd found online – in what was fast becoming 'Eurabia'. Worst of all, Europe's 'cultural Marxist' elites had caved in, like a woman who would rather 'be raped than ... risk serious injuries while resisting'. Even the Lutheran Church – 'priests in jeans who march for Palestine and churches that look like minimalist shopping centres' – had surrendered. Fortunately, there were 'knights' like Breivik who had the courage to defend Europe's honour.

2083 isn't just a manifesto: it's also the would-be inspirational memoir of a man who has rejected the 'Sex and the City lifestyle' in favour of his sacred duty. The leap from empty hedonism to murderous heroism is also a recurring theme in the biographies of the young men who leave Bradford, Hamburg, Paris and Oslo for Syria. As Borchgrevink writes, Breivik's hatred of Islam didn't prevent him from proposing a tactical alliance with al-Qaida against the liberal state he hated even more. The desires that motivated him scarcely differed from those of his jihadist enemies: revenge, adventure and fame.

Breivik was born in 1979. His parents never married, and separated before he was two; he was raised by his mother, a nurse, who turned out to be unstable and emotionally abusive. By the time he was four, the home had become so turbulent that the state welfare services recommended he be removed. But the recommendation was never acted on, and Breivik grew up hating his mother, whom he accused of 'feminising' him, and idolising the father he rarely saw. He was drawn to tough boys like his pal Rafik, the son of Pakistani immigrants who claimed to know members of the notorious 'B Gang' in Oslo East. Breivik was a 'potato', a white boy, but under Rafik's tutelage he bought himself a pair of baggy trousers and learned to steal and speak what Borchgrevink calls 'Kebab Norwegian'. He 'bombed the city' with his graffiti tag, Morg, inspired by a Marvel Comics villain. But the friendship with Rafik gradually unravelled, partly because Rafik and his cohort seemed to be a magnet for the white girls who rejected him. Breivik joined a 'white pride' gang, and even found himself a girlfriend – but then she dumped him for a Pakistani.

He didn't do much better in his attempt to become a millionaire, though in his twenties he did make some money selling cheap mobile phone contracts and fake diplomas, mostly to immigrants. He joined the right-wing Progress Party, whose opposition to immigration and higher taxes chimed with his own resentments. But what appears to have transformed him was discovering the writings of Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen, a blogger who wrote under the name 'Fjordman'. Fjordman's online manifesto, Native Revolt: A European Declaration of Independence, gave meaning to Breivik's failures by situating them in a global war between Christendom and Islam. Rafik, he realised, was no mere hoodlum: he was a secret jihadist. 'The petty-criminal subculture of the 1990s was reborn as a religious conflict,' in Borchgrevink's words, and Breivik was now a knight in the war to save Europe.

Keen to make contact with his fellow knights, he introduced himself to Fjordman, who found him 'as boring as a vacuum cleaner salesman'. He turned up at a pro-Israel meeting organised by the Friends of Document.no, a far-right website edited by Hans Rustad, a former soixante-huitard who claimed that Muslim men were using sex as a form of warfare, inflicting a 'slow castration' on Western men. Rustad felt 'there were some inhibitions missing in [Breivik's] head.' No one with inhibitions would have wandered into Monrovia during the Liberian civil war, which is what Breivik did in 2002. He told friends that he was going to buy blood diamonds, but his real purpose was to pay his respects to Milorad Ulemek, known as the Dragon, an ultra-nationalist Serb who'd fought in the Special Operations Unit of the Serb army: the Serbs, in Breivik's view, had been Europe's front-line defenders in the battle with Islam, only to be cruelly abandoned in their hour of need. Nothing much came of these encounters, but he now felt himself to be part of a community. In 2006 he moved back in with his mother, so that he could contribute to right-wing websites, play video games and work on 2083. But he was afraid of becoming 'a bitter old goat behind a computer': 'Convert your frustration and anger to motivation and resolve,' he told himself. He began taking steroids, and dressing up in a red uniform covered in badges; his mother thought he'd gone 'all Rambo'.

On the morning of 22 July 2011, Breivik uploaded his manifesto to his favourite websites, and emailed it to 1003 contacts in Europe and Israel. He'd timed the launch to coincide with the events he'd planned for later in the day: a bombing in central Oslo, followed by a strike on Utøya, an island 40 kilometres north of the city where the Labour Party Youth had their annual retreat. He'd been preparing the attack since 2002, he claimed when interrogated by the police. He had bought his Ruger rifle and Glock pistol legally; the rifle bore the inscription 'Gungnir', after Odin's spear. He built the 950 kg bomb with fertiliser he'd purchased for a farm he set up in 2009 on land rented from elderly farmers north of Oslo. Five months before the massacre, a UN-directed anti-terror programme identified him as one of 41 Norwegians who had imported chemicals that could be used for fertiliser bombs, but the Norwegian security services didn't investigate. They were worried about radical jihadists, not West End boys who lived with their mothers.

Breivik placed the bomb in a van parked outside a government building. It went off at 15.22, killing eight people. Disguised as a police officer, Breivik then made his way to Utøya by ferry. A failure at everything else he had tried, he proved to be a highly methodical killer. In little more than an hour, he killed 69 people, 67 of them with shots to the head; two died from drowning in the fjord as they tried to escape. Thirty-two of the victims were under the age of 18. 'Today you will die, Marxists,' he shouted. He had chosen his victims carefully. For all his rage against Muslims, he was more angry at the leftists who had allowed them to enter Norway. Generations of Labour Party leaders had received their political, and sentimental, education at the Utøya camp. The 'left-wing ideological stone in the shoe of the pragmatic governing Labour Party', Utøya embodied everything that Breivik loathed: feminism, gay rights, and sympathy for immigrants and oppressed Third World peoples. With his 'pre-emptive' attack on these 'cultural Marxists' he hoped to detonate a civil war. In the eyes of most Norwegians, though, he had attacked not only Utøya but Norway itself. Thanks to Breivik, Borchgrevink writes, Norway discovered that it was 'rich in more than oil, and 22 July 2011 became a symbol – not of division and weakness, but of strength and solidarity'.

Breivik was symbolically purged from Norway: he was a 'lone madman', his crime a horrifying but isolated incident. This fable was reassuring but never very persuasive. Before his trial he was described as a paranoid schizophrenic, but the psychiatrist in residence at Ila Prison failed to find any evidence of psychosis or schizophrenia; a second team of psychiatrists concluded that he had narcissistic personality disorder but that he was not psychotic and was therefore criminally liable for his actions. Breivik himself insisted that he was sane, and after a second psychiatric assessment he was deemed sane enough to stand trial and to receive the maximum 21-year sentence. Still, the conventional wisdom in Norway remains that Breivik is a case for psychiatrists, rather than a cause for deeper political reflection. Borchgrevink gives a detailed account of Breivik's descent into the virtual netherworld of 'Eurabia' literature, yet he too blames his radicalisation on a dysfunctional home. He relies heavily on confidential reports by the psychiatrists who had monitored little Anders and his mother – reports that his mother, who died last year, fought successfully to have declared inadmissible as evidence. If it hadn't been for 'a deficit of family care', he implies, Breivik might never have turned violent.

Perhaps. But the story doesn't end there, as Sindre Bangstad argues in Anders Breivik and the Rise of Islamophobia. Childhood trauma doesn't explain why Breivik directed his anger at Muslims and the European 'quislings' who colluded with them. And to focus exclusively on Breivik is to miss, even repress the problem of Norway's relationship to its Muslim population. As Bangstad writes, 'it is entirely possible to be a lone madman, yet act out ideological fantasies of purity and existential danger which are, in fact, far more mainstream.' Very few Norwegians would condone Breivik's actions, even secretly, or understand why his anger at Muslims took the form of killing mostly white teenagers. Yet the anti-Muslim tropes that appear in 2083 are commonplace not only online, but among members of the Progress Party (of which he was a member until 2004) – the country's third largest party and a junior partner in the Conservative Party government. Anti-Muslim rhetoric has seeped into liberal movements in Norway, too, movements concerned with gay rights, feminism and free speech. One might have expected this trend to be reversed after Utøya, but the opposite has happened. Norwegian 'unity' was strengthened by the Breivik massacre, but at the expense of the country's Muslim minority, who comprise 3.6 per cent of its five million citizens, and who are less welcome than ever.
*
Tolerance has never been Norway's strong suit. Jews and Catholics were constitutionally banned from entering the country for much of the 19th century; the prohibition against Jesuits was lifted only in 1956. The so-called tatere – travelling Romani who have been in Norway for several hundred years – were subject to ruthless assimilation policies, including forced sterilisation, from the 1930s until the 1970s. There is no figure in Norwegian history more reviled than Vidkun Quisling, the collaborationist prime minister who was executed in 1945, but he had plenty of company. Yet until the 1980s, Norwegians learned at school only of the heroic men who took to the forests and mountains to fight the Nazis, not of the thousands who volunteered for the Waffen SS's Nordic Division Wiking, or of the round-ups of Jews by the Norwegian police. By then, Muslims had replaced Jews as the 'enemy within' for the far right.

The first wave of Muslim immigration began during the oil boom of the 1960s, when guest workers arrived from Pakistan. In 1975, Norway's parliament passed a ban on immigration which, in effect, applied only to non-Western migrant labour. Since then, most immigrants of Muslim background have arrived either as asylum seekers (the majority from Somalia or the Balkans) or to join an already settled husband or father. At first, Muslims immigrants weren't identified as Muslims but by their family's country of origin. That changed in the 1990s. Partly thanks to a feeling that they weren't fully accepted as Norwegians, piety and social conservatism among Muslims increased, a trend that leaders of mosques – some trained in highly conservative schools in Pakistan – did their best to encourage. More than 80 per cent of Norwegians belong to the Lutheran Church, but almost no one attends services. Muslims increasingly stood out as believers of a different religion in a Christian yet irreligious society. For many Norwegians, a stroll in parts of Oslo East became an unsettling experience. The sounds of Urdu and Arabic, the wearing of the hijab, even the smell of foreign food clashed with their idea of Norway. The country, many began to feel, had a 'Muslim problem'.

The fears that drive this perception are not entirely irrational. Norway's Muslims are over-represented in the professions, but they are also over-represented among the poor and unemployed. Racism, disenfranchisement, the war on terror and a feeling that their identity as Muslims is under attack have made some of them susceptible to the appeal of radical Salafism. Bangstad provides a thorough account of groups like IslamNet and the Prophet's Ummah, which has sent volunteers to Syria and held small but incendiary rallies in support of Isis. Yet, as he emphasises, the supporters of radical Islam are vastly outnumbered by Muslims who reject it. And while Muslims protested against what were seen as insults to Islam, from the publication of The Satanic Verses to the Danish cartoons, opinion polls show that they remain supportive of free speech, at levels only a few percentage points below those of 'ethnic' Norwegians.

Faced with such polls, Norway's Islam haters say they're lying, that they're practising taqiyya, a Shia term for 'dissimulation'. The spectre of 'Islamic expansion' has helped the Progress Party to become a major political force. Its share of the vote may have dropped from 22.9 per cent to 16.3 in the 2013 parliamentary elections, but it was able to enter the governing coalition for the first time. When it was established in 1973, the PP was known as the ALP: Anders Lange's Party for a Strong Reduction in Taxes, Duties and Public Intervention. The 'threat' of racial minorities ranked far below high taxes, toll roads and the price of petrol on its list of priorities at the time. Yet the party has always been infected by a powerful strain of white supremacy. In the late 1980s, the PP turned its attention to immigration, particularly Muslim immigration, drawing inspiration from the success of the Danish Progress Party (from which it took its new name). Lange's successor, Carl Hagen, warned at a rally in 1987 that unless Norwegians rallied in defence of their culture, 'Islam will conquer Norway.'

Central to the PP's message is the idea that the country's 'cultural elite' is stabbing Norway in the back, colluding with what its leader Siv Jensen – Norway's finance minister – describes as 'Islamisation by stealth'. Because liberals are 'failing liberals', only an aggressive party like the PP can defend Norway's traditions of social liberalism. Under Jensen, the patriarchal, nostalgic party of Norwegian shopkeepers has rebranded itself as a feminist party, although its feminism mostly amounts to what Bangstad (following Gayatri Spivak) calls 'saving brown women from brown men'. The 'polarisation entrepreneurs' of the PP have a growing audience, and their arguments an increasing cohesion and sophistication, thanks to journalists and bloggers like Fjordman and Walid al-Kubaisi, an exiled Iraqi writer and filmmaker who has played the role of 'native informant' much as Ayaan Hirsi Ali did in Holland. Their rhetoric is more extreme than the PP's, but the overlap is too pronounced to be a coincidence, and some have advised the party. They form part of a much broader network, an anti-Islam international that extends from Scandinavia to the United States and includes such figures as Lars Hedegaard, a prominent right-wing Danish intellectual; the Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci; the American neoconservatives Daniel Pipes, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer; and – the maître à penser of the 'Eurabia genre' – Gisèle Littman, a British woman of Egyptian-Jewish origin who lives in Switzerland and publishes under the pseudonym Bat Ye'or. (It's striking how many Eurabia theorists write under pseudonyms when you consider their attacks on Muslim dissimulation.)

Eurabia writers believe the West has been weakened by a politically correct cult of victimhood, yet their own writing (like Breivik's) appears to be driven by a personal sense of injury at the hands of Muslims, reinterpreted, and thereby globalised, through the prism of Samuel Huntington's 'clash of civilisations'. Fjordman, an Arabist from a left-wing family, was in Cairo on 9/11 when he saw a group of Egyptians celebrating the attacks. Al-Kubaisi fled from Iraq to avoid serving in the Iran-Iraq war and received asylum – and a state scholarship guaranteeing him an income for the rest of his life – in Norway. Bruce Bawer, an American gay literary critic who moved to Norway in 1999 to be with his Norwegian partner, came to see Muslim immigrants as an irredeemably illiberal fifth column. He denounced Breivik as a 'murderous madman' but – in his 2012 book The New Quislings: How the International Left Used the Oslo Massacre to Silence Debate about Islam – lifted two fake assertions directly from 2083: that the Labour Party had employed anarchist militants as storm troops, and that 'innumerable Norwegians have been killed by Muslims.'

Eurabia ideologues have been given a platform by liberal intellectuals and the Norwegian press. Hysterical polemics about Islam and Muslim immigration are easy to come by in liberal papers like Klassekampen. So are articles that confirm the hysteria, such as a recent interview with a Norwegian admirer of Isis, which appeared in a liberal newspaper without any editorial note questioning his claim to be speaking for all Muslims. Liberal tolerance for anti-Muslim hate speech, Bangstad argues, goes back to the Rushdie affair, when Norway became the first country to publish The Satanic Verses in translation. Four days after Khomeini issued the fatwa, a group of Muslim leaders established the Islamic Defence Council, calling for the novel to be banned and invoking a blasphemy law that had long since fallen into disuse. In 1993, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher, William Nygaard, was shot three times outside his home in Oslo (he survived); the assailant was never found. The government responded by forming a series of commissions that called for expanding the protection of free speech. It was an admirably full-throated defence of Rushdie's right to publish, but, as Bangstad suggests, since then a kind of 'free speech absolutism' has steadily chipped away at any concern for minority protections against racist and discriminatory speech, which are guaranteed by Norwegian law. A popular narrative had emerged that Muslims were uncomfortable with free speech, and that there was an irreconcilable conflict between Norwegian 'values' and Muslim 'culture'. The press became 'an arena for confrontation rather than dialogue' – a forum for inflammatory views about Islam. Tolerance for 'free speech' has been widely construed as a loyalty test. 'The right to offend bishops and imams is absolutely central to our way of life,' Per Edgar Kokkvold, the secretary-general of the Norwegian Press Association, has explained. 'If they happen to dislike it, they must leave.'

The situation hasn't improved since the Breivik massacre. The press gave lavish coverage to a tiny protest by radical Islamists outside the US Embassy over the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims, attended by eighty people, but virtually ignored a demonstration of 6000 people organised by the Islamic Council of Norway with support from Oslo's Lutheran bishop. As Bangstad writes, the press has had a love affair with the 'young and marginalised Muslims' who are 'willing to play the role ... which non-Muslim Norwegians have valid reasons to fear'. And the intellectual establishment continues to dote on Eurabia propagandists who insist that these young people represent Islam as a whole. Breivik's hero Fjordman has graduated from the web to the pages of the Aftenposten, a self-described 'conservative-liberal' newspaper. He's also writing a book about Utøya, partly subsidised by a fellowship from the Fritt Ord Foundation, Norway's most prestigious free speech organisation. Nygaard, who is now the chairman of PEN Norway, defended Fjordman's fellowship on the grounds that he 'does not incite violence'.

Norway isn't the only European country in which the cause of free speech has been travestied by bigots. Throughout the continent, but especially in Scandinavia, demagogic 'critics of Islam' have styled themselves as modern-day Dreyfusards willing to speak truths that politically correct liberals don't dare express. The recent electoral successes of the right-wing Swedish Democrats, France's Front National and Geert Wilders in Holland have been fuelled by their appeals to anti-Muslim fear. As Bangstad writes, socially liberal right-wing populists now claim to be carrying on the campaign that began more than two centuries ago with the revolt against the superstitions – and privileges – of the church. Its liberal credentials, they say, should be self-evident: why should Europeans give any quarter to those who cover their women and attack the achievements of postwar social movements, from women's emancipation to gay marriage – not to mention those among them who support jihad? In 1892, Edouard Drumont set up an anti-Semitic newspaper to expose the Jews' disloyalty to France; he called it La Libre Parole.

Link. (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n22/adam-shatz/west-end-boy)

Neat trick how the article morphs from a mini-bio of Breivic to an attack on free speech.  :hmm:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 29, 2014, 12:29:44 PM
Neat trick how the article morphs from a mini-bio of Breivic to an attack on free speech.  :hmm:

Europeans can't be trusted with free speech.  They'll start killing wiping out minorities with in a week if we let them.

QuoteLiberal tolerance for anti-Muslim hate speech, Bangstad argues, goes back to the Rushdie affair, when Norway became the first country to publish The Satanic Verses in translation.

This tells me quite a bit about where the author is coming from.

That he hasn't read Joseph Anton yet?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2014, 03:00:31 PM

QuoteLiberal tolerance for anti-Muslim hate speech, Bangstad argues, goes back to the Rushdie affair, when Norway became the first country to publish The Satanic Verses in translation.

This tells me quite a bit about where the author is coming from.

Aye.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2014, 03:00:31 PM

QuoteLiberal tolerance for anti-Muslim hate speech, Bangstad argues, goes back to the Rushdie affair, when Norway became the first country to publish The Satanic Verses in translation.

This tells me quite a bit about where the author is coming from.

I don't agree with the article.

The author is a nutjob.

I think it makes a lot of good points. It also jibes with what a couple of friends opinions and experiences having lived in Norway and the Netherlands.

It's something that I've always found a little troubling, things like gay rights suddenly becoming an accessory for the far-right because we're a useful tool to attack another minority.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 11:22:57 PM
I think it makes a lot of good points. It also jibes with what a couple of friends opinions and experiences having lived in Norway and the Netherlands.

It's something that I've always found a little troubling, things like gay rights suddenly becoming an accessory for the far-right because we're a useful tool to attack another minority.

The problem is that this gets an equally troubling equivalent on the left, i.e. any criticism of Muslims, including their attitudes towards women and gays, is branded as "islamophobia".

To paraphrase an old saying, if any criticism of Islam is viewed as a far right thing, only far right parties will criticise Islam.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 11:22:57 PMIt's something that I've always found a little troubling, things like gay rights suddenly becoming an accessory for the far-right because we're a useful tool to attack another minority.

Really?  The far right? :unsure:  Like skinheads and shit are campaigning for gay rights amongst Muslims?

QuoteThe situation hasn't improved since the Breivik massacre. The press gave lavish coverage to a tiny protest by radical Islamists outside the US Embassy over the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims, attended by eighty people, but virtually ignored a demonstration of 6000 people organised by the Islamic Council of Norway with support from Oslo's Lutheran bishop.

I love how left or right everybody is sure the press is conspiring against them.  I am impressed how the media manages to enrage everybody equally.

Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2014, 02:21:48 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 11:22:57 PMIt's something that I've always found a little troubling, things like gay rights suddenly becoming an accessory for the far-right because we're a useful tool to attack another minority.

Really?  The far right? :unsure:  Like skinheads and shit are campaigning for gay rights amongst Muslims?

No.  :huh:

Quote

QuoteThe situation hasn't improved since the Breivik massacre. The press gave lavish coverage to a tiny protest by radical Islamists outside the US Embassy over the YouTube video Innocence of Muslims, attended by eighty people, but virtually ignored a demonstration of 6000 people organised by the Islamic Council of Norway with support from Oslo's Lutheran bishop.

I love how left or right everybody is sure the press is conspiring against them.  I am impressed how the media manages to enrage everybody equally.

Well, the media usually represents the mainstream/centrist view (whatever it is in a given country), so both the far-right and the far-left will naturally consider it biased against them and there is no inconsistency there.

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 02:14:34 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 11:22:57 PM
I think it makes a lot of good points. It also jibes with what a couple of friends opinions and experiences having lived in Norway and the Netherlands.

It's something that I've always found a little troubling, things like gay rights suddenly becoming an accessory for the far-right because we're a useful tool to attack another minority.

The problem is that this gets an equally troubling equivalent on the left, i.e. any criticism of Muslims, including their attitudes towards women and gays, is branded as "islamophobia".

To paraphrase an old saying, if any criticism of Islam is viewed as a far right thing, only far right parties will criticise Islam.

What are the valid criticisms of Muslims.  What are the valid criticisms of gays?

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 02:31:25 AM
No.  :huh:

So...not the far right?

Quoteboth the far-right and the far-left will naturally consider it biased against them and there is no inconsistency there.

Absolutely.  Far-left and far-right people are generally paranoid nutcases. 

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 11:22:57 PM
I think it makes a lot of good points. It also jibes with what a couple of friends opinions and experiences having lived in Norway and the Netherlands.

It's something that I've always found a little troubling, things like gay rights suddenly becoming an accessory for the far-right because we're a useful tool to attack another minority.

It is a bit odd to see people who believe in the traditional roles of women use that same issue against the Muslims.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 30, 2014, 02:45:44 AM
What are the valid criticisms of Muslims.

I think dietary and dress restrictions in religion is absurd.  It preserves certain arbitrary cultural things as eternal, which is ridiculous, and I do not think serves much of a spiritual purpose.  There are certainly other aspects of Islam I do like.  But that is just my view, not sure how valid that is.  What would be an example of a valid criticism of a religion or culture in your opinion since you are asking?  :unsure:

QuoteWhat are the valid criticisms of gays?

What do gays have in common that could be criticized?

Quote from: Razgovory on November 30, 2014, 02:47:22 AM
It is a bit odd to see people who believe in the traditional roles of women use that same issue against the Muslims.

Are these actually the same people?  I see the right do this sort of thing to the left all the time and just lump all leftwing values together as if all different flavors of left-wingers agree on everything.  I don't know maybe they are, but I have a hard time thinking this is what a Putinist or a Golden Dawn person would attack Muslims for.  But maybe they do.

Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2014, 02:46:28 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 02:31:25 AM
No.  :huh:

So...not the far right?

What I meant is this is not what Sheilbh was saying. The far-right is not campaigning for "gay rights among Muslims". What they are doing - and this is usually in the societies where gay rights are already a done-deal so there is no cultural war over them any more - they are saying "Oh look, if we allow Muslims in, they will breed us out, and get enough votes to abolish your precious woman and gay rights." Which I suppose is hypocritical as they were themselves against these rights few years ago.

Quote

Quoteboth the far-right and the far-left will naturally consider it biased against them and there is no inconsistency there.

Absolutely.  Far-left and far-right people are generally paranoid nutcases.

Well, as I said, it depends on a country what is considered mainstream and what is considered extreme. For example, in Poland the "moderate conservative" worldview is considered to be mainstream, so things that are pretty vanilla centrist (like gay marriage, abortion for "social reasons", etc.) in the West are considered "extreme left" causes here. And they are presented in quite a biased way in the mainstream media* (which does not prevent the very same media from being equally hostile to extreme right wing causes - but you can imagine what is considered "extreme right wing" in Poland ;)).

*For example, until recently, gay pride marches were reported on - even in the more liberal / left leaning mainstream media - by focusing on the freak show aspect. And since they could not find many freaks in Polish gay pride marches (which are usually more subdued and "normalised" affairs), they sometimes accompanied reports on, say, Warsaw pride (without any commentary) by stock footage from San Francisco or Berlin love parade. Clearly you can see how this can distort the public view of gays.

Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2014, 02:50:51 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 30, 2014, 02:45:44 AM
What are the valid criticisms of Muslims.

I think dietary and dress restrictions in religion is absurd.  It preserves certain arbitrary cultural things as eternal, which is ridiculous, and I do not think serves much of a spiritual purpose.  There are certainly other aspects of Islam I do like.  But that is just my view, not sure how valid that is.  What would be an example of a valid criticism of a religion or culture in your opinion since you are asking?  :unsure:

QuoteWhat are the valid criticisms of gays?

What do gays have in common that could be criticized?

I think elements of culture that tend to instil certain attitudes and behaviours in people can be criticised.

For the Muslim culture that could be contempt for women as less equal than men, or hostility towards gays.

For the gay culture that could be the youth/looks obsession, promiscuity, risky sexual behaviours.

That is not to say all Muslims or all gays are like this, but I think it is a no-brainer that cultures (and sub-cultures) can have detrimental effects on their members, and it makes sense to try to correct these effects through education and the like.

Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2014, 02:53:14 AM
Are these actually the same people? 

Yes and no. The European far right is becoming much more difficult to pin-point. For an example, take Marine Le Pen. She is against gay marriage, but she attacks Muslims over treatment of women and gays. Likewise, as a woman, she is an example of gender equality - but I would not exclude the possibility that many people who vote for Front National (and especially those who "joined" when her father was still in charge) hold very traditional views on gender roles.

Partly, I blame what I already said to Sheilbh - because Muslim immigration and resulting cultural clashes are an issue in the West, and the mainstream politicians fail not only to propose a resolution, but even to acknowledge that the issue exists (and those who think there is one are shouted down as far-right racists), people tend to gravitate to far-right parties.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 30, 2014, 02:45:44 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 02:14:34 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 29, 2014, 11:22:57 PM
I think it makes a lot of good points. It also jibes with what a couple of friends opinions and experiences having lived in Norway and the Netherlands.

It's something that I've always found a little troubling, things like gay rights suddenly becoming an accessory for the far-right because we're a useful tool to attack another minority.

The problem is that this gets an equally troubling equivalent on the left, i.e. any criticism of Muslims, including their attitudes towards women and gays, is branded as "islamophobia".

To paraphrase an old saying, if any criticism of Islam is viewed as a far right thing, only far right parties will criticise Islam.

What are the valid criticisms of Muslims.  What are the valid criticisms of gays?

Going after ideas that people hold is ok, going after what people are isn't.

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 02:14:34 AM
The problem is that this gets an equally troubling equivalent on the left, i.e. any criticism of Muslims, including their attitudes towards women and gays, is branded as "islamophobia".

To paraphrase an old saying, if any criticism of Islam is viewed as a far right thing, only far right parties will criticise Islam.

But I don't think that's true, certainly not anymore. It reminds me of general discussion of immigration in this country. It almost always starts with a politician/columnist/hack saying 'we need to have a conversation about immigration' as if we talk about anything else and as if their views are somehow being stigmatised by the PC left.

For something that's apparently so beyond the pale criticism of Islam is an extraordinarily profitable niche view. There are best-selling books and columnists dragging in hundreds of thousands a year that talk about little else. Tommy Robinson, former leader of the English Defence League, gets an hour long TV show in which he confronts various Muslim leaders trying to find, in his view, the 'mythical' moderate Muslim (though I hate the use of moderate there) - though he eventually does in an counter-extremism think tank.

There's no comparison with things that are actually beyond the pale: bigotry.

Now having said all that I do think we need to be very alive to the fact that criticism of Islam can become Islamophobia and it can lead to the sort of radical literature that does affect someone like Breivik or the British soldier (and wannabe terrorist) who was arrested yesterday.

My position on this is broadly speaking to always follow Peter Tatchell. He's a national treasure. He was a radical gay rights activist in the 80s and 90s but has since branched out into more general human rights, he tried to perform a citizen's arrest on Robert Mugabe twice. Though he did used to still go to gay pride marches in Russia and anti-war demos during Gaza operations with signs saying 'Israel: Stop Oppressing Palestine! Palestine: Stop Oppressing Gays!' :lol:

But he is fearless right now in drawing attention to human rights abuses against women and minorities in the Muslim world like Christians and gays and equally fierce in rejecting the suggestion that this is somehow imperialist of him. But I think the fact that people from Richard Littlejohn, through Nick Cohen to Peter Tatchell are making these criticisms is an indication that it's the preserve of the far-right or somehow ostracised.

I can't think of a country that hasn't had some tortured debate about integration over the last few years, which is largely about the Muslim community.

QuoteWhat I meant is this is not what Sheilbh was saying. The far-right is not campaigning for "gay rights among Muslims". What they are doing - and this is usually in the societies where gay rights are already a done-deal so there is no cultural war over them any more - they are saying "Oh look, if we allow Muslims in, they will breed us out, and get enough votes to abolish your precious woman and gay rights." Which I suppose is hypocritical as they were themselves against these rights few years ago.

Yep. The EDL always, always have a guy with a rainbow flag at their marches and it really annoys me. Because I don't think for a minute that the EDL would be championing gay rights if it weren't something they can use to attack Muslims. Frankly and I hate to be so snobbish but you look at some of them in that group and they look like recreational gay bashers.

I lived in Tower Hamlets which is a very Muslim borough of London and the EDL wanted to march down a main street. There was a big counter-demonstration I went to and, unsurprisingly, Peter Tatchell was there with from memory a sign saying something like 'GAYS AGAINST FASCISM'. He drew some attention and abuse from a group of young Bengali men over this from a distance. So he decided to march up and talk to them about it which he did for about five minutes. I heard bits about how it doesn't matter if they like him, or agree with what he wants to do or if he likes them or agrees with them, but it's about respect and that you show each other respect regardless etc. I didn't hear much but I admired him for it. But after a few minutes he left with them shaking his hand and entirely happy with a gay-Muslim popular front in Whitechapel :lol:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2014, 06:02:14 AM
My position on this is broadly speaking to always follow Peter Tatchell. He's a national treasure. He was a radical gay rights activist in the 80s and 90s but has since branched out into more general human rights, he tried to perform a citizen's arrest on Robert Mugabe twice. Though he did used to still go to gay pride marches in Russia and anti-war demos during Gaza operations with signs saying 'Israel: Stop Oppressing Palestine! Palestine: Stop Oppressing Gays!' :lol:

Yes, but this kind of attitude (which I agree with), is actually lambasted as islamophobia by some of the human rights activists. Have you read about the scandal when one such famous activist refused to accept a prize from the coalition of German LGBT movements because they espoused views like the ones you describe by Tatchell - and she accused them of being racist and islamophobic, and not respecting "cultural diversity"?

QuoteI lived in Tower Hamlets which is a very Muslim borough of London and the EDL wanted to march down a main street. There was a big counter-demonstration I went to and, unsurprisingly, Peter Tatchell was there with from memory a sign saying something like 'GAYS AGAINST FASCISM'. He drew some attention and abuse from a group of young Bengali men over this from a distance. So he decided to march up and talk to them about it which he did for about five minutes. I heard bits about how it doesn't matter if they like him, or agree with what he wants to do or if he likes them or agrees with them, but it's about respect and that you show each other respect regardless etc. I didn't hear much but I admired him for it. But after a few minutes he left with them shaking his hand and entirely happy with a gay-Muslim popular front in Whitechapel :lol:

Was it after or before there were "sharia patrols" and "gay-free zone" stickers in Tower Hamlets?

Maybe they put these stickers as a sign of sadness that you moved out? :P

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 06:23:36 AM
Yes, but this kind of attitude (which I agree with), is actually lambasted as islamophobia by some of the human rights activists. Have you read about the scandal when one such famous activist refused to accept a prize from the coalition of German LGBT movements because they espoused views like the ones you describe by Tatchell - and she accused them of being racist and islamophobic, and not respecting "cultural diversity"?

I hadn't. But I think they're the minority. I think in a decade of Hitchens and Tatchells, of multiculturalism's 'utter failure' and the burqa ban, or Tommy Robinson's rehabilitation that the idea that you can't criticise Islam or the left will jump on you just doesn't hold up.

It seems like all other sorts of conservative victimisation. Everyone's oppressed by political correctness, if they weren't they'd agree with me that Muslims need to eat bacon and immigrants need to go home. It's the flip-side of the left-wing view that if only it weren't for Rupert Murdoch and the false consciousness of those nasty tabloids we'd have already built a Communist utopia.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2014, 06:30:38 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 06:23:36 AM
Yes, but this kind of attitude (which I agree with), is actually lambasted as islamophobia by some of the human rights activists. Have you read about the scandal when one such famous activist refused to accept a prize from the coalition of German LGBT movements because they espoused views like the ones you describe by Tatchell - and she accused them of being racist and islamophobic, and not respecting "cultural diversity"?

I hadn't. But I think they're the minority. I think in a decade of Hitchens and Tatchells, of multiculturalism's 'utter failure' and the burqa ban, or Tommy Robinson's rehabilitation that the idea that you can't criticise Islam or the left will jump on you just doesn't hold up.

It seems like all other sorts of conservative victimisation. Everyone's oppressed by political correctness, if they weren't they'd agree with me that Muslims need to eat bacon and immigrants need to go home. It's the flip-side of the left-wing view that if only it weren't for Rupert Murdoch and the false consciousness of those nasty tabloids we'd have already built a Communist utopia.

Because Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins etc. etc. don't get rountinely accused of racism when they do to islam what they usually do to christianity?

Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/)

I could list a long list, but google did the hard work for me

https://www.google.no/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=IAN7VJq9DcqK8Qfvn4HoBA#safe=off&q=new+atheism+islapmophobia

The very point is that is precisely what does happen. Even to Jack Straw of all people Dangerous attack or fair point? Straw veil row deepens (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/oct/07/politics.religion)

So? They get hurt feelings.

The way people talk it's like political correctness is the inquisition, in which case it's a very coy one. Was Calvin flirting with heresy?

If people genuinely think a politician or a journalist is racist, then their career's over. But people don't even think Nigel Farage is a racist (in general) and he doesn't want them to think he's racist because he knows it would kill off his career and possibly his party. The accusations made in Salon or Comment is Free don't mean anything.

These people continue to have careers, people continue to buy copy that's critical of Islam and people keep producing it. As one journalist commented in the Leveson Inquiry for a while his job was to find negative stories about Muslims, or to make them up, because it's a great-selling headline. There's more to 'the left' (of which Tatchell, Hitchens, Straw and Cohen are members in good standing - not to mention all the other similar writers/activists) silencing people through political correctness than accusations. The key bit is that lots of people agree that that opinion is best off silent - not in major newspapers or political parties. That hasn't happened with Islam which is why there's a very vibrant, profitable strand of criticism and a rather meeker set of of apologists.

And to boil it down to just numbers the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Telegraph, the Sun sell a lot, lot more and matter a lot more the Guardian and the Independent. Similarly the conservative online media world and Salon (:bleeding:) or Slate.

Noone is making a point that people are prosecuted for criticising islam. I think the point is that people who hold moderately leftist / centrist views (unlike Farage and his supporters) but are sceptical about religious, including Islamic, fundamentalism do actually care if they are called racist by the fringe leftists and there isn't enough repudation of such name calling from the left in general. So such people end up abandoning the left - which hurts legitimate leftist causes.

The left is essentially making the same mistake as the right did when they vilified gays and other minorities - thus pushing then into the waiting arms of the left even though they may, on balance choose to vote right on some or most issues. The left is now mirroring the same attitude by vilifying people who are sceptical about Islam (such as recently Bill Maher) and this is why right wing parties in Europe are growing in popularity.

Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2014, 02:21:48 AM


I love how left or right everybody is sure the press is conspiring against them.  I am impressed how the media manages to enrage everybody equally.

I take it as a sign that media is doing a decent enough job. :bowler:

As for the article, I agree in one sense that Breivik got exactly what he wanted; publicity. Fjordman got his 15 minutes of fame and a grant (!!!) for his writing. But that's how free speech works. Tolerate the intolerable. And enraging ISIL supporters is a Good Thing.  :sleep: :moon:

This is the same mechanism as the recent furore from some feminists over that guy's shirt - essentially, the rhetoric from certain parts of the left has become hateful and toxic, and this is hurting the left as a whole.  This is something I regret because the left is very weak these days in most Western countries.

Quote from: Viking on November 30, 2014, 06:01:34 AM


Going after ideas that people hold is ok, going after what people are isn't.

Oh, see I thought Muslim was part of their identity.

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 07:35:32 AM
This is the same mechanism as the recent furore from some feminists over that guy's shirt - essentially, the rhetoric from certain parts of the left has become hateful and toxic, and this is hurting the left as a whole.  This is something I regret because the left is very weak these days in most Western countries.

Might be on to something.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/464366008451338240/AjdoPAW3.jpeg)

Manlet's maybe the male equivalent of the fatty feminist complaining about slim Barbie dolls in the Guardian.  :hmm:

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 07:27:25 AM
Noone is making a point that people are prosecuted for criticising islam. I think the point is that people who hold moderately leftist / centrist views (unlike Farage and his supporters) but are sceptical about religious, including Islamic, fundamentalism do actually care if they are called racist by the fringe leftists and there isn't enough repudation of such name calling from the left in general. So such people end up abandoning the left - which hurts legitimate leftist causes.

I don't get this thing about people repudiating beliefs they don't hold. I don't really think most Muslims have a duty to loudly proclaim they're opposed to terrorism, or that critics of Islam should have to repudiate Breivik and the British bomber. I don't think the left in general has any responsibility to repudiate campus lefties. Especially when, for example, in this country the overwhelming majority of reforms to encourage integration and to stop the sort of state use of extreme Islamists happened under centre-left government.

And the point I'm making isn't about prosecution. Racist books and websites exist in their own little world. What we're talking about here is the bravery of best-selling authors, established politicians and highly-paid columnists for speaking the unspeakable. Which I think is nonsense.

The area I do worry about the left is foreign policy. I think there's some very strange and rather scary views that seem to be going mainstream.

QuoteThe left is essentially making the same mistake as the right did when they vilified gays and other minorities - thus pushing then into the waiting arms of the left even though they may, on balance choose to vote right on some or most issues. The left is now mirroring the same attitude by vilifying people who are sceptical about Islam (such as recently Bill Maher) and this is why right wing parties in Europe are growing in popularity.

See I think it's like immigration. There is a strand of criticism that will never be satisfied and will always be represented by UKIP and that sort of party.

My view is that the mistake many people have made is that they're getting into an arms race over these topics with people that will always be able to go further - while some who totally disagree just shout that everyone's being racist. You're not going to win back UKIP voters who want to end immigration by a speech on ending certain benefits rights. Similarly you're not going to convince people who want to institute French style laicite for the first time in British history by saying there's valid concerns over integration.

My view is the best approach in both cases is to realise you'll never feed that beast and actually to make a defence of liberalism against the often illiberal policies that are apparently necessary to save it.

Quote from: Legbiter on November 30, 2014, 10:11:04 AM

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 07:35:32 AM
This is the same mechanism as the recent furore from some feminists over that guy's shirt - essentially, the rhetoric from certain parts of the left has become hateful and toxic, and this is hurting the left as a whole.  This is something I regret because the left is very weak these days in most Western countries.

Might be on to something.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/464366008451338240/AjdoPAW3.jpeg)

Manlet's maybe the male equivalent of the fatty feminist complaining about slim Barbie dolls in the Guardian.  :hmm:

Is "manlet" a slur or his actual name?  :lol:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2014, 03:20:28 PM
I don't get this thing about people repudiating beliefs they don't hold.

The point of repudiating a position you don't subscribe to is to maintain your own legitimacy and credibility.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 30, 2014, 03:27:43 PM
The point of repudiating a position you don't subscribe to is to maintain your own legitimacy and credibility.

Sure. But I don't like the implication that we should assume the worst of people which they then have to rebut to maintain their legitimacy and credibility.

I think one should repudiate those who, in the absence of such repudiation, are assumed to be on the same side.

It's the only way to do away with tribalism, which is the primary fault of politics these days. "You are a friend of mine, Plato, but truth is a greater friend of mine" should be the first principle of any credible politician, as far as I am concerned.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2014, 03:30:45 PM
Sure. But I don't like the implication that we should assume the worst of people which they then have to rebut to maintain their legitimacy and credibility.

We don't assume the worst.  We assume that members of an identifiable group that have agreed on issues in the past continue to do so unless we are told otherwise.

So I can continue to think all self-identified Christians love to murder children on Labour's summer camp and bomb abortion clinics for fun, then.

Quote from: Norgy on November 30, 2014, 04:18:35 PM
So I can continue to think all self-identified Christians love to murder children on Labour's summer camp and bomb abortion clinics for fun, then.

You can think anything you want, but I'm pretty sure at least one Christian has repudiated those actions.

Quote from: Viking on November 30, 2014, 06:45:20 AM


Because Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins etc. etc. don't get rountinely accused of racism when they do to islam what they usually do to christianity?

Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens: New Atheists flirt with Islamophobia (http://www.salon.com/2013/03/30/dawkins_harris_hitchens_new_atheists_flirt_with_islamophobia/)

I did not see the word "racism" once there.  Are they, bigots? Yeah sure.  I've made that point numerous times and not just for attacking Islam.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2014, 03:20:28 PM
I don't get this thing about people repudiating beliefs they don't hold. I don't really think most Muslims have a duty to loudly proclaim they're opposed to terrorism, or that critics of Islam should have to repudiate Breivik and the British bomber.

I believe very precisely in the opposite of this. When/If somebody murders claiming that he/she does this evil deed on behalf of the Icelanders I do have a duty to loudly proclaim my opposition to it - if only for my own sake and for the sake of my own identity. Al-Qaeda and ISIS are murdering BECAUSE they are muslims and ON BEHALF of muslims everywhere; in their own words.

In effect the modern Nazi who likes the corporatist economic structure, good road infrastructure, snazzy colour coded uniforms and vacations paid for by the government has problems. If he's gonna keep calling himself a NAZI he really does need to either dissociate himself from the people who did the holocaust.

By claiming to act on behalf of islam and acting under instruction from their religious teachings the terrorists are claiming to speak for all muslims and usurping the religion itself.

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 07:35:32 AMThis is the same mechanism as the recent furore from some feminists over that guy's shirt - essentially, the rhetoric from certain parts of the left has become hateful and toxic, and this is hurting the left as a whole.  This is something I regret because the left is very weak these days in most Western countries.

I've been thinking about this and I kind of agree, though I don't think it's a left-wing thing alone.

I don't know if it's just that British politics is in a strange place now but everyone seems to be enjoying their grievances a bit much. We're heading into culture wars which is awful. People are wallowing in self-pity about how the LibLabConspiracy stops people from talking about what's wrong with Muslims (in the comments section under Rod Liddle's seven hundredth article on that subject), then they're outraged at someone saying something, possibly awful, that they disagree with.

It's like the whole Mozilla CEO thing, it's moving to wanting people fired and punished for what they're saying. Nick Cohen highlighted a couple of ridiculous recent cases. Jack Monroe a British leftie and food writer made a dreadful comment about Cameron's dead son (more or less accused him of using him as a prop for NHS policies). Which was wrong and I think she should apologise for it. But the right-wing reaction was lots of unpleasant comments about the fact that she's a lesbian and a campaign for Sainsbury's to fire her. Myleene Klass a d-list celebrity had a go at Ed Miliband on TV last week and suddenly there was a campaign to get Littlewoods to fire her as a model.

A shadow cabinet minister got fired for a tweet last week. This week a junior minister in the naval reserves revealed she used a speech in a debate on poultry safety standards to pay a 'fine' from a dinner with her reservist colleagues by using innuendos like 'cock' as many times as she could. Now the Mail's campaigning that she's fired for not treating the House sufficiently seriously.

Meanwhile the Oxford University pro-life group tries to host a debate between two men (one pro-choice, one pro-life) and they can't get a venue because of pro-choice activism, this gets praised by the President of the Cambridge Union (so a future cabinet minister currently chairing a debating society):
http://cambridge.tab.co.uk/2014/11/20/freedom-speech-doesnt-mean-get-whatever-platform-want/

I don't think it's possibly but I wish we could just take a step back from the denunciations and demands for repudiations and criticism for insufficiently heartfelt repudiation and all the rest of it. Everyone's so priggish and put-upon and sensitive. It's exhausting. I feel, in the UK, like the whole country just needs to go to the pub, but I think it'd probably lead to a fight :ph34r:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2014, 06:29:24 PMEveryone's so priggish and put-upon and sensitive. It's exhausting. I feel, in the UK, like the whole country just needs to go to the pub, but I think it'd probably lead to a fight :ph34r:

I think it's my generation (Gen X) which started the idea that being offended was a social problem and not a personal one.  :Embarrass:

It is probably easier to preach than actually do, but I think we should work to refocus our efforts from teaching people not to be offensive, to teaching people not to get offended so easily. The phenomenon of "white knighting" or getting offended on someone else's behalf is especially at fault here, because often the actual "victims" are less offended by some joke or turn of phrase than people who stand up in their defense.

I disagree here. Offense is taken, not given. Before moving on to deal with the "real" social problem of rudeness we need to deal with the entitlement many feel to not be offended. Offense (in addition to subversion) is and has always been the justification given to limit the free exchange of ideas.

You'r god does not exist. Your suffering is no greater than anybody else's. That idea you have is stupid. You yourself are primarily to blame for your own problems. etc. All these statements can always used to take offense. They are also the most important ones we need to be able to make to improve and better society.

One person's feelings and emotions should never be used as a justification to limit or prohibit speech. Outside of truth in advertising, incitement or encouragement of crime and possibly a few others; there should be no limits to the freedom of speech and the reduction of that freedom of speech is a greater evil than the hurt feelings of those who have just been told that their ideas, values or identity is silly or stupid.

I agree with Viking and Sheilbh.

On Sheilbh's point, I am hoping that it is just a symptom of societies being fairly new to the combined effect of (relative) free spech and extraordinary easy access to all kinds of information, primarily from the "other camp".
We still need some maturing to do. Can we do that before this thing overwhelmes the less capable parts of our societies and we end up with a range of fascist regimes? I don't know.

Quote from: Viking on December 01, 2014, 05:58:56 AM
I disagree here. Offense is taken, not given. Before moving on to deal with the "real" social problem of rudeness we need to deal with the entitlement many feel to not be offended. Offense (in addition to subversion) is and has always been the justification given to limit the free exchange of ideas.

Who are you disagreeing with? Because I just said exactly the same, although with different words.  ;)

Quote from: Tamas on December 01, 2014, 07:00:33 AM
On Sheilbh's point, I am hoping that it is just a symptom of societies being fairly new to the combined effect of (relative) free spech and extraordinary easy access to all kinds of information, primarily from the "other camp".

I think certainly in the UK we're importing American culture wars, as is often the case their political culture is just a little bit ahead. I hope not because they're annoying and exhausting.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2014, 09:33:41 AM

Quote from: Tamas on December 01, 2014, 07:00:33 AM
On Sheilbh's point, I am hoping that it is just a symptom of societies being fairly new to the combined effect of (relative) free spech and extraordinary easy access to all kinds of information, primarily from the "other camp".

I think certainly in the UK we're importing American culture wars, as is often the case their political culture is just a little bit ahead. I hope not because they're annoying and exhausting.

I don't agree. There are no culture wars here. The most angry disputes are about public spending priorities, the EU and specifically about the right of free movement within the EU. This is a political/policy dispute, not a cultural one. There are no quasi-religious disputes of any significance in the UK.

While debate is a bit more agressive than it was 10 years or so ago, they are much less unpleasant than in the 1960s-80s although the internet has made the debate much louder.

I think the article from The Spectator I just posted in the UKIP thread is on to something - essentially the speed and volume with which we can broadcast our views and receive an immediate feedback is unparalleled by anything from the past, and this creates an echo chamber effect.

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 02:57:30 AM
*For example, until recently, gay pride marches were reported on - even in the more liberal / left leaning mainstream media - by focusing on the freak show aspect. And since they could not find many freaks in Polish gay pride marches (which are usually more subdued and "normalised" affairs), they sometimes accompanied reports on, say, Warsaw pride (without any commentary) by stock footage from San Francisco or Berlin love parade. Clearly you can see how this can distort the public view of gays.

Ah, Marti the Tolerant.

Maybe we could change the thread title to something like "Norwegian bomb and gun massacre, three years on." ? 

As we're sort of perpetuating his name, infamy being in part what motivated him?

Ah but this time we make him look like a balkantard.

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2014, 01:25:38 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 02:57:30 AM
*For example, until recently, gay pride marches were reported on - even in the more liberal / left leaning mainstream media - by focusing on the freak show aspect. And since they could not find many freaks in Polish gay pride marches (which are usually more subdued and "normalised" affairs), they sometimes accompanied reports on, say, Warsaw pride (without any commentary) by stock footage from San Francisco or Berlin love parade. Clearly you can see how this can distort the public view of gays.

Ah, Marti the Tolerant.

Meh. These guys are freaks. And they revel in being freaks. I don't fault them for that - it's their choice and they have every right to do this. But what's the point in pretending they are normal? It insults them.

Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2014, 03:47:32 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2014, 01:25:38 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 02:57:30 AM
*For example, until recently, gay pride marches were reported on - even in the more liberal / left leaning mainstream media - by focusing on the freak show aspect. And since they could not find many freaks in Polish gay pride marches (which are usually more subdued and "normalised" affairs), they sometimes accompanied reports on, say, Warsaw pride (without any commentary) by stock footage from San Francisco or Berlin love parade. Clearly you can see how this can distort the public view of gays.

Ah, Marti the Tolerant.

Meh. These guys are freaks. And they revel in being freaks. I don't fault them for that - it's their choice and they have every right to do this. But what's the point in pretending they are normal? It insults them.

Heh,"gay marriage" is the thing most likely to prove anathema to the freaks and homophobes alike.  ;)

Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2014, 03:59:35 PM

Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2014, 03:47:32 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2014, 01:25:38 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 02:57:30 AM
*For example, until recently, gay pride marches were reported on - even in the more liberal / left leaning mainstream media - by focusing on the freak show aspect. And since they could not find many freaks in Polish gay pride marches (which are usually more subdued and "normalised" affairs), they sometimes accompanied reports on, say, Warsaw pride (without any commentary) by stock footage from San Francisco or Berlin love parade. Clearly you can see how this can distort the public view of gays.

Ah, Marti the Tolerant.

Meh. These guys are freaks. And they revel in being freaks. I don't fault them for that - it's their choice and they have every right to do this. But what's the point in pretending they are normal? It insults them.

Heh,"gay marriage" is the thing most likely to prove anathema to the freaks and homophobes alike.  ;)

Exactly. It's all gentrification, picket fences and heteronorm.

Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2014, 04:09:23 PM

Exactly. It's all gentrification, picket fences and heteronorm.

Henceforth known as the "norm".  :D

Hell, there is a nice gay couple living one door up from me that meets this to a "T". We discussed leaf raking the other day.

Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2014, 03:47:32 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2014, 01:25:38 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 30, 2014, 02:57:30 AM
*For example, until recently, gay pride marches were reported on - even in the more liberal / left leaning mainstream media - by focusing on the freak show aspect. And since they could not find many freaks in Polish gay pride marches (which are usually more subdued and "normalised" affairs), they sometimes accompanied reports on, say, Warsaw pride (without any commentary) by stock footage from San Francisco or Berlin love parade. Clearly you can see how this can distort the public view of gays.

Ah, Marti the Tolerant.

Meh. These guys are freaks. And they revel in being freaks. I don't fault them for that - it's their choice and they have every right to do this. But what's the point in pretending they are normal? It insults them.

I don't accept that there are just two options - normality (whatever that is) and freakdom.

Marty is Normonormative.

Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2014, 04:15:32 PM
We discussed leaf raking the other day.

My discussions on leaf raking to date have been neighbors complaining that I haven't done it.  :lol:

garbon, you seem to think freakiness is a bad thing. I do not share this view - just calling spade a spade.

Malthus, it's funny - some of the most not only conservative, but outright reactionary couples I met were this gay men couple I used to know.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2014, 04:43:08 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2014, 04:15:32 PM
We discussed leaf raking the other day.

My discussions on leaf raking to date have been neighbors complaining that I haven't done it.  :lol:

Malthus was using a euphemism, you really don't want to know what it involves.  :(

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2014, 04:43:08 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2014, 04:15:32 PM
We discussed leaf raking the other day.

My discussions on leaf raking to date have been neighbors complaining that I haven't done it.  :lol:

You need to get on that.  It's December already for crying out loud. 

Quote from: derspiess on December 01, 2014, 04:53:33 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2014, 04:43:08 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2014, 04:15:32 PM
We discussed leaf raking the other day.

My discussions on leaf raking to date have been neighbors complaining that I haven't done it.  :lol:

You need to get on that.  It's December already for crying out loud.

Conform mulch?

Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2014, 04:43:59 PM
garbon, you seem to think freakiness is a bad thing. I do not share this view - just calling spade a spade.

Okay, gotcha. Well no, freak is not a neutral term.

Quote from: mongers on December 01, 2014, 04:46:33 PM

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2014, 04:43:08 PM

Quote from: Malthus on December 01, 2014, 04:15:32 PM
We discussed leaf raking the other day.

My discussions on leaf raking to date have been neighbors complaining that I haven't done it.  :lol:

Malthus was using a euphemism, you really don't want to know what it involves.  :(

We also discussed gutter cleaning.  ;)

Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2014, 04:43:59 PM
garbon, you seem to think freakiness is a bad thing. I do not share this view - just calling spade a spade.

Question for the masses - is the phrase "calling a spade a spade" really appropriate these days?

Some quick googling suggests that:

A. The phrase pre-dates any racial connotations by centuries; but
B. the use of the word "spade" as a slur for blacks goes back to the 1920s and is now pretty firmly established as well

:hmm:

Quote from: mongers on December 01, 2014, 04:56:03 PM
Conform mulch?

:D

I'm just not a fan of other peoples' leaves blowing into my lawn.

Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2014, 05:08:13 PM
Question for the masses - is the phrase "calling a spade a spade" really appropriate these days?

Some quick googling suggests that:

A. The phrase pre-dates any racial connotations by centuries; but
B. the use of the word "spade" as a slur for blacks goes back to the 1920s and is now pretty firmly established as well

:hmm:

I avoid using it in situations where some goofball might decide to take it the wrong way.

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2014, 04:58:26 PM

Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2014, 04:43:59 PM
garbon, you seem to think freakiness is a bad thing. I do not share this view - just calling spade a spade.

Okay, gotcha. Well no, freak is not a neutral term.

It is not but I don't use it negatively. Just as I am happy to call myself a "faggot" in some circumstances.

Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2014, 05:08:13 PM

Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2014, 04:43:59 PM
garbon, you seem to think freakiness is a bad thing. I do not share this view - just calling spade a spade.

Question for the masses - is the phrase "calling a spade a spade" really appropriate these days?

Some quick googling suggests that:

A. The phrase pre-dates any racial connotations by centuries; but
B. the use of the word "spade" as a slur for blacks goes back to the 1920s and is now pretty firmly established as well

:hmm:

Interesting. I didn't know it. I saw it used in serious publications such as the Economist, I believe, so don't think it is considered offensive. So I will continue using it, but then I try not to be niggardly with my verbiage.

Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2014, 05:08:13 PM

Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2014, 04:43:59 PM
garbon, you seem to think freakiness is a bad thing. I do not share this view - just calling spade a spade.

Question for the masses - is the phrase "calling a spade a spade" really appropriate these days?

Some quick googling suggests that:

A. The phrase pre-dates any racial connotations by centuries; but
B. the use of the word "spade" as a slur for blacks goes back to the 1920s and is now pretty firmly established as well

:hmm:

Interesting. That must be a North American thing I had no idea 'spade' had any racial connotations at all.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2014, 05:27:27 PM

Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2014, 05:08:13 PM

Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2014, 04:43:59 PM
garbon, you seem to think freakiness is a bad thing. I do not share this view - just calling spade a spade.

Question for the masses - is the phrase "calling a spade a spade" really appropriate these days?

Some quick googling suggests that:

A. The phrase pre-dates any racial connotations by centuries; but
B. the use of the word "spade" as a slur for blacks goes back to the 1920s and is now pretty firmly established as well

:hmm:

Interesting. That must be a North American thing I had no idea 'spade' had any racial connotations at all.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4C-zYrFUg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4C-zYrFUg)  :cool:

I prefer the more PC version: call a jigaboo a jigaboo.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2014, 05:40:04 PM
I prefer the more PC version: call a jigaboo a jigaboo.

MOON CRICKETS

Quote from: mongers on December 01, 2014, 03:19:26 PM
Maybe we could change the thread title to something like "Norwegian bomb and gun massacre, three years on." ? 

As we're sort of perpetuating his name, infamy being in part what motivated him?

I like how "Breivic" sounds south-slavic rather thank "Breivik" which is arch-norwegian.

Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2014, 05:31:32 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2014, 05:27:27 PM

Quote from: Barrister on December 01, 2014, 05:08:13 PM

Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2014, 04:43:59 PM
garbon, you seem to think freakiness is a bad thing. I do not share this view - just calling spade a spade.

Question for the masses - is the phrase "calling a spade a spade" really appropriate these days?

Some quick googling suggests that:

A. The phrase pre-dates any racial connotations by centuries; but
B. the use of the word "spade" as a slur for blacks goes back to the 1920s and is now pretty firmly established as well

:hmm:

Interesting. That must be a North American thing I had no idea 'spade' had any racial connotations at all.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/09/19/224183763/is-it-racist-to-call-a-spade-a-spade

"Spade" for Black sounds like a slightly dated slang term to my ears.

I don't think I've heard it since the 70s, like mongers said.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2014, 05:27:27 PM
Interesting. That must be a North American thing I had no idea 'spade' had any racial connotations at all.

Really? Been a derogatory terms here for years. Bit archaic now, but I heard it at a football match last season (by some blokes in the 30s)

Quote from: Gups on December 02, 2014, 03:02:51 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2014, 05:27:27 PM
Interesting. That must be a North American thing I had no idea 'spade' had any racial connotations at all.

Really? Been a derogatory terms here for years. Bit archaic now, but I heard it at a football match last season (by some blokes in the 30s)

Yeah, never heard it. I'll mention it to friends because I wonder if it's just a term that's died out.

I think the general fascination with serial killers and such and the desire to publicise their name and get to learn their life stories shows just what a nasty little species we can be.

If we truly cared for the victims and their memory, we will never ever even mention the killers' name.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2014, 04:21:18 AM

Quote from: Gups on December 02, 2014, 03:02:51 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2014, 05:27:27 PM
Interesting. That must be a North American thing I had no idea 'spade' had any racial connotations at all.

Really? Been a derogatory terms here for years. Bit archaic now, but I heard it at a football match last season (by some blokes in the 30s)

Yeah, never heard it. I'll mention it to friends because I wonder if it's just a term that's died out.

I heard it a lot back in the 1970s, perhaps as a demi-euphemism as it doesn't really have deep roots in English culture. It is also used by Danny in Withnail and I btw, you haven't been paying attention  :D

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 02, 2014, 05:14:29 AM
I heard it a lot back in the 1970s, perhaps as a demi-euphemism as it doesn't really have deep roots in English culture. It is also used by Danny in Withnail and I btw, you haven't been paying attention  :D

It was unfortunately very common dahn sarf, and was definitely well-integrated into popular culture of the "Love Thy Neighbour" variety.

Quote from: Brazen on December 02, 2014, 05:20:34 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 02, 2014, 05:14:29 AM
I heard it a lot back in the 1970s, perhaps as a demi-euphemism as it doesn't really have deep roots in English culture. It is also used by Danny in Withnail and I btw, you haven't been paying attention  :D

It was unfortunately very common dahn sarf, and was definitely well-integrated into popular culture of the "Love Thy Neighbour" variety.

Yeah, I left the south and moved back up north in 1974 and never heard it again. Moving back down south to London in 1977 I don't recall hearing it in that period. By then, of course, we had moved from "anything goes" to thinking about language and discrimination beyond the basics of not beating people up for being different.

Quote from: Tamas on December 02, 2014, 05:01:40 AM
I think the general fascination with serial killers and such and the desire to publicise their name and get to learn their life stories shows just what a nasty little species we can be.

If we truly cared for the victims and their memory, we will never ever even mention the killers' name.

In general, the whole aftermath has been a mixture of a disgrace and tragedy. The court case was very much publicised, although the terrorist's statements weren't. Then there's a whole debacle about a memorial at Utøya, tearing down the block that was hit in the blast pre-massacre and the sad state of readiness in the middle of the summer holidays (and otherwise) in Norway. While Sweden maybe lost their innocence with two murdered high profile politicians, I suppose we lost ours July 22nd 2011. Without debating the child murderer's ideology too much, the whole thing has given fuel to conspiracy theorists from the "alternative" part of that great quilt that is public opinion. That this was some false flag op to save Labour from a hiding in the local elections, that it was a CIA/Mossad/Labour party plot. The scope and range of the theories are baffling, and quite frankly the part of the aftermath I take offense with.

The survivors shouldn't have to be subjected to doubt in that way. For a time, people were more polite, more open and took more care of each other, but three years on, we've all reverted back to our normal mode.
While I mostly agree with Sheilbh, Viking and Martinus, I don't go out of my way to try and offend people just because I can. Maybe all the toxic and hateful rhethoric undermines freedom of speech in the long run. I don't know.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 02, 2014, 05:25:56 AM
Yeah, I left the south and moved back up north in 1974 and never heard it again. Moving back down south to London in 1977 I don't recall hearing it in that period. By then, of course, we had moved from "anything goes" to thinking about language and discrimination beyond the basics of not beating people up for being different.

The W-word lived on until the 80s - I remember hearing it at secondary school, quite often in the context of a ghetto blaster called a w** box. Glad that one's died out.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2014, 04:21:18 AM

Quote from: Gups on December 02, 2014, 03:02:51 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2014, 05:27:27 PM
Interesting. That must be a North American thing I had no idea 'spade' had any racial connotations at all.

Really? Been a derogatory terms here for years. Bit archaic now, but I heard it at a football match last season (by some blokes in the 30s)

Yeah, never heard it. I'll mention it to friends because I wonder if it's just a term that's died out.

I think it is pretty well archaic now. It sounds like something you would hear in a Blaxploitation remake, to sound "period". Like, these really uncool Whitey cats were hassling Shaft, calling him a "spade" and all ...  ;)

Anyway, I don't think anyone is likely to take racial offence at using the phrase "calling a spade a spade" these days.

Quote from: Malthus on December 02, 2014, 10:31:42 AM
I think it is pretty well archaic now. It sounds like something you would hear in a Blaxploitation remake, to sound "period". Like, these really uncool Whitey cats were hassling Shaft, calling him a "spade" and all ...  ;)

Anyway, I don't think anyone is likely to take racial offence at using the phrase "calling a spade a spade" these days.

And of course Keenan Ivory Wayans's lead character in "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka" was named Jack Spade.

The W word? :unsure:

Whoosh.

Quote from: Ed Anger on December 01, 2014, 05:51:54 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 01, 2014, 05:40:04 PM
I prefer the more PC version: call a jigaboo a jigaboo.

MOON CRICKETS

That one was always my favorite.

Although I did hear a sergeant come over the radio once in the middle of a confused foot chase, and say "now wait a cotton-pickin' minute".  The radio silence was deafening.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 02, 2014, 12:39:25 PM
The W word? :unsure:

I'm guessing "wog".

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2014, 12:51:26 PM
Although I did hear a sergeant come over the radio once in the middle of a confused foot chase, and say "now wait a cotton-pickin' minute".  The radio silence was deafening.

I didn't know that had racist connotations. 

Quote from: derspiess on December 02, 2014, 01:20:37 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 02, 2014, 12:51:26 PM
Although I did hear a sergeant come over the radio once in the middle of a confused foot chase, and say "now wait a cotton-pickin' minute".  The radio silence was deafening.

I didn't know that had racist connotations.

WHO PICKS COTTON?  WHITE PEOPLE, THAT'S WHO

A lot of white people did.

Save it for the rally, States' Rights.

I used to use that phrase back in the 60s, picked it up from watching Deputy Dawg, luckily nobody in London or Celle seemed to mind  :hmm:

The racism of "cottin-picking" seems up for debate:

http://open.salon.com/blog/heather_michon/2010/08/31/wait_one_cotton-picking_minute

Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2014, 05:15:19 PMserious publications such as the Economist

:lmfao:

Quote from: Valmy on November 30, 2014, 02:21:48 AM.  I am impressed how the media manages to enrage everybody equally.

It must be a conspiracy.

Quote from: Barrister on December 02, 2014, 02:00:40 PM
The racism of "cottin-picking" seems up for debate:

http://open.salon.com/blog/heather_michon/2010/08/31/wait_one_cotton-picking_minute

Only in the sense that it can be misconstrued as something racist.  Using it in conjunction with a person who happens to be black is cringe-worthy though, and you're just asking for faux-outrage.

You people.  :rolleyes: