Scandinavian Thread

[garbon]

Try looking at certain corners of twitter and yes. Any one off bad shit befalling gay people means our entire society is against them.
Thankfully 'Gay extremists' never really get particularly violent.

Amazing how several people are being (wilfully?) ignorant of this fundamental part of how Islamic extremists work. Again, Four Lions presents this nicely (drawn right from Al Quaida literature)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GLoKkkCtY

It would be so wonderful if you could learn to write that into your original post.

"When someone in the West burns a Koran, some Muslims perceive it as the West hates us."

This is an infinitely less ridiculous statement than what you first said.

Agreed.

Though also in revised form, not the slam dunk he thinks it is. After all, some Muslims could still perceive the West hates them even without Koran burning.

More nuanced to think about whether increased restrictions on one's own citizens are worth what benefits.

[Josquius]

Kind of facepalm worthy given the context that this isn't just a random faceless comment that you'd believe I personally follow Islamic extremist logic and wasn't just presenting their view in contrast to the other extremist view that burning a quaran is a good thing on principle.

Definitely true some people are always going to hate the west anyway. But avoiding giving them ammunition to recruit is a good thing, especially when it involves controlling against an action for which there's no innocent explanation.

[garbon]

Kind of facepalm worthy given the context that this isn't just a random faceless comment that you'd believe I personally follow Islamic extremist logic and wasn't just presenting their view in contrast to the other extremist view that burning a quaran is a good thing on principle.

Definitely true some people are always going to hate the west anyway. But avoiding giving them ammunition to recruit is a good thing, especially when it involves controlling against an action for which there's no innocent explanation.

Where does that stop?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Kind of facepalm worthy given the context that this isn't just a random faceless comment that you'd believe I personally follow Islamic extremist logic and wasn't just presenting their view in contrast to the other extremist view that burning a quaran is a good thing on principle.

Definitely true some people are always going to hate the west anyway. But avoiding giving them ammunition to recruit is a good thing, especially when it involves controlling against an action for which there's no innocent explanation.

Where does that stop?

With Germany invading poland and the ussr invading Finland, as it where.

[Josquius]

Kind of facepalm worthy given the context that this isn't just a random faceless comment that you'd believe I personally follow Islamic extremist logic and wasn't just presenting their view in contrast to the other extremist view that burning a quaran is a good thing on principle.

Definitely true some people are always going to hate the west anyway. But avoiding giving them ammunition to recruit is a good thing, especially when it involves controlling against an action for which there's no innocent explanation.

Where does that stop?

To some extent where the damage caused in outlawing actions actually inconveniences people with innocent explanations for doing those things (e.g. the theatre carve out).
To some extent where the damage caused outweighs the damage avoided- though this one of course can be grossly perverted if you're so inclined or fuck up.
There's no hard and fast one size fits all rule.
But avoiding people burning religious texts with the express purpose of riling up followers of that religion? Yeah...that sounds pretty common sense to me.

[Tamas]

Try looking at certain corners of twitter and yes. Any one off bad shit befalling gay people means our entire society is against them.
Thankfully 'Gay extremists' never really get particularly violent.

Amazing how several people are being (wilfully?) ignorant of this fundamental part of how Islamic extremists work. Again, Four Lions presents this nicely (drawn right from Al Quaida literature)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GLoKkkCtY

It would be so wonderful if you could learn to write that into your original post.

"When someone in the West burns a Koran, some Muslims perceive it as the West hates us."

This is an infinitely less ridiculous statement than what you first said.

Agreed.

Though also in revised form, not the slam dunk he thinks it is. After all, some Muslims could still perceive the West hates them even without Koran burning.

More nuanced to think about whether increased restrictions on one's own citizens are worth what benefits.

Also I would offer the argument that it is important for Muslims coming from the background of cultures with various legal deference toward the Quran to grasp that there'll be fringe assholes trying to get a rise out of them by doing these stunts, and just because these are not sanctioned, it doesn't mean they are condoned by wider society. And to be fair I am fairly certain the big majority of them already do.

Also, Josq, I think you might think that NOT sanctioning "blasphemy" is somehow playing to the tune of the far-right asshats looking to steer up anti-Muslim sentiment. I think it is the exact opposite. Triggering the islamist response and even more importantly the resulting law in Denmark must be EXACTLY what the far-right (or at least their leaders) wanted. They need this visible cultural encroaching so they have something to rally against. It is also good for the Islamists because it shows they have the power to coerce change by the threat of violence. With such laws, the extremists at both end win and everyone else loses.

[garbon]

Kind of facepalm worthy given the context that this isn't just a random faceless comment that you'd believe I personally follow Islamic extremist logic and wasn't just presenting their view in contrast to the other extremist view that burning a quaran is a good thing on principle.

Definitely true some people are always going to hate the west anyway. But avoiding giving them ammunition to recruit is a good thing, especially when it involves controlling against an action for which there's no innocent explanation.

Where does that stop?

To some extent where the damage caused in outlawing actions actually inconveniences people with innocent explanations for doing those things (e.g. the theatre carve out).
To some extent where the damage caused outweighs the damage avoided- though this one of course can be grossly perverted if you're so inclined or fuck up.
There's no hard and fast one size fits all rule.
But avoiding people burning religious texts with the express purpose of riling up followers of that religion? Yeah...that sounds pretty common sense to me.

But what counts as 'innocent'? Sometimes riling people up is a way of causing change.

What if a woman started covering Korans in period blood to raise awareness about oppressive Muslim societies? A gay man went around talking about how Muhammad was his backdoor lover to raise awareness around oppression faced by gays in Muslim socities? Naturally they would expect it might rile people up.

Are those not innocent and not permitted? What's the rulebook on what is a permittable critical technique and what is not?

[Tamas]

What's the rulebook on what is a permittable critical technique and what is not?

[Grey Fox]

Furthermore: Religion is a choice, sex and race is not a choice. They are not the same.

If you're religious, your religion isn't just "a choice".  You make it sound as if it deserves no more respect then what colour of socks you choose to wear.

No, choosing your religion is the most important choice you will ever make in your life, and the next one.

From the state? Probably even less than color choices of clothes items.

[Josquius]

But what counts as 'innocent'? Sometimes riling people up is a way of causing change.

What if a woman started covering Korans in period blood to raise awareness about oppressive Muslim societies? A gay man went around talking about how Muhammad was his backdoor lover to raise awareness around oppression faced by gays in Muslim socities? Naturally they would expect it might rile people up.

Are those not innocent and not permitted? What's the rulebook on what is a permittable critical technique and what is not?

There there'd be an actual point beyond "Fuck muslims".
That's the thing with the far  right. They pretend to care about women's rights, gay rights, etc... when it gives them a stick to hit muslims with.
On the other hand you have people who are primarily concerned with those things first and foremost and offend muslims purely as a side effect of this.
All together different kettle of fish.

Try looking at certain corners of twitter and yes. Any one off bad shit befalling gay people means our entire society is against them.
Thankfully 'Gay extremists' never really get particularly violent.

Amazing how several people are being (wilfully?) ignorant of this fundamental part of how Islamic extremists work. Again, Four Lions presents this nicely (drawn right from Al Quaida literature)- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6GLoKkkCtY

It would be so wonderful if you could learn to write that into your original post.

"When someone in the West burns a Koran, some Muslims perceive it as the West hates us."

This is an infinitely less ridiculous statement than what you first said.

Agreed.

Though also in revised form, not the slam dunk he thinks it is. After all, some Muslims could still perceive the West hates them even without Koran burning.

More nuanced to think about whether increased restrictions on one's own citizens are worth what benefits.

Also I would offer the argument that it is important for Muslims coming from the background of cultures with various legal deference toward the Quran to grasp that there'll be fringe assholes trying to get a rise out of them by doing these stunts, and just because these are not sanctioned, it doesn't mean they are condoned by wider society. And to be fair I am fairly certain the big majority of them already do.

Also, Josq, I think you might think that NOT sanctioning "blasphemy" is somehow playing to the tune of the far-right asshats looking to steer up anti-Muslim sentiment. I think it is the exact opposite. Triggering the islamist response and even more importantly the resulting law in Denmark must be EXACTLY what the far-right (or at least their leaders) wanted. They need this visible cultural encroaching so they have something to rally against. It is also good for the Islamists because it shows they have the power to coerce change by the threat of violence. With such laws, the extremists at both end win and everyone else loses.

As said its 3D chess. No easy answer.
Let them do their shit, they boost Islamic extremist recruitment and in turn their own recruitment.
Stop them doing their shit, they cry "look our weak and corrupt government is afraid of/in the thrall of the muslamic extremists" and boost their own recruitment.
A balance needs to be sought where the amount of trouble they can cause is minimised whilst at the same time their ability to play their favourite game of claiming victim status isn't strengthened too much.

[garbon]

There there'd be an actual point beyond "Fuck muslims".
That's the thing with the far  right. They pretend to care about women's rights, gay rights, etc... when it gives them a stick to hit muslims with.
On the other hand you have people who are primarily concerned with those things first and foremost and offend muslims purely as a side effect of this.
All together different kettle of fish.

So it isn't so much what people say they are doing but rather whether it is judged they are trying to make a point that determines what should be permitted?

[Josquius]

There there'd be an actual point beyond "Fuck muslims".
That's the thing with the far  right. They pretend to care about women's rights, gay rights, etc... when it gives them a stick to hit muslims with.
On the other hand you have people who are primarily concerned with those things first and foremost and offend muslims purely as a side effect of this.
All together different kettle of fish.

So it isn't so much what people say they are doing but rather whether it is judged they are trying to make a point that determines what should be permitted?

I'm pretty sure that its common in law that intent matters. IIRC the wording of hate crime laws in the UK specifically talk about this.

[garbon]

There there'd be an actual point beyond "Fuck muslims".
That's the thing with the far  right. They pretend to care about women's rights, gay rights, etc... when it gives them a stick to hit muslims with.
On the other hand you have people who are primarily concerned with those things first and foremost and offend muslims purely as a side effect of this.
All together different kettle of fish.

So it isn't so much what people say they are doing but rather whether it is judged they are trying to make a point that determines what should be permitted?

I'm pretty sure that its common in law that intent matters. IIRC the wording of hate crime laws in the UK specifically talk about this.

But you just said they will say their intent is to help gays.

[garbon]

What it actually sounds like is you don't like what their point is - which is that they find Islam to be noxious.

[Josquius]

But you just said they will say their intent is to help gays.

And the court will find that to be transparent nonsense.

What it actually sounds like is you don't like what their point is - which is that they find Islam to be noxious.

Yes. I don't like mindless hate with zero positive aim.