I don't have much to contribute to the topic, but are you familiar with Bayes' theorem?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious Charlie Hebdo attack and European Far Right
- Thread starter DiscoDucky
- Start date
A Muslim's Response to the 25,000 Anti-Islam Protesters in Germany
- "Dear 25,000 Anti-Islam Dresden Protesters and Pegida,
I hear you marched in your thousands against my religion. Last week, and last month. You marched against immigrants, foreigners, and anyone a shade darker. I will not draw comparisons to Nazi Germany. I will not call you bigots, I will not insult you, and I will not label you. But we do have a problem.
You marched with banners claiming your city is overcrowded with Muslims. Yet 0.1% of Dresden are Muslim. You marched claiming immigrants are cramming your schools and leaving your children to travel miles for an education. Yet 2.5% of Dresden are foreign-born.
You claim that Germany is being invaded by Muslims. Yet only 5% of Germans are Muslim.
You march "against the Islamization of the West". Yet within a century containing two World Wars, the decolonisation process, countless civil conflicts, foreign intervention, globalisation, and further displacement, Muslims remain a fringe minority in Europe. Less than 6%. A pretty lousy colonisation process, no?
You marched against refugees and asylum seekers, claiming Germany is their target for welfare and social security. Yet according to UNHCR, there are 51.2million refugees worldwide. Germany caters for less than 0.01% of them. Is that too much to ask? Is such a humanitarian obligation too large for the Refugee Convention 1951 your government ratified? Or is it actually punitive, for example, in comparison to Lebanon where every fourth person is a Syrian refugee?
Protesters, you are not alone. In my country, Britain, we have our own anti-immigration party. Ukip won their first seat in Clacton with nothing but anti-migrant rhetoric. Yet only 4.3% of Clacton are foreign-born. In a Parliamentary-based system, where each constituency elects a representative to voice their views, there is nothing Ukip can do for the people of Clacton.
Do you see a pattern? Perhaps I should explain. Your kind tend to establish themselves where their "problem" does not actually exist. Is this therefore an issue of negative perception? Fear of the unfamiliar? Intolerance in ignorance? Scapegoating an underclass? Media misinformation?
I will elaborate. London has a 36.2% foreign-born population. Relatively, that is fifteen times the population of foreigners in Dresden. A far greater diversity. Ukip poll the lowest in London compared to the rest of the country- in every demographic, foreign or not. London is a metropolis of brown, black, and white working side by side. We thrive. I saw an atheist today. Guess what? I did not try to convert him nor behead him for blasphemy; I helped him off the bus. He was 74 years old.
Does that make sense?
Your only insight into Islam is a box in your living room. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance infest the information you expose yourself to. Information which dehumanises and polarises anyone unlike you.
You enjoy the far-right media portrayal of Islam. It makes you feel good. Superior. Better. The barbaric Muslims, we are. We disrespect women, and we impose our beliefs on to others.
Yet did you know that Turkey, Indonesia, and Bangladesh, all Muslim majority states have had more elected female heads of state than almost every other Western country? Did you know that the Quran explicitly says "there is no compulsion in religion" (2:256), and our Prophet clarified "whomever hurts a non-Muslim will not smell a whiff of paradise"?
Did you know that your twisted misrepresentation of my religion helps the terrorists? Did you know that you and the terrorists agree on what seems to form an integral part of your identity: that Islam is violent? Did you know that you even use the same methodology to proclaim this; taking a verse out of context and evading any intellectual discourse?
What are Muslims to you, anyway? Arabs? Less than 20% of us are Arab. Indian or Pakistani? Again, less than 20%. Turkish? Less than 5%. Nothing else? That is more than half of us you cannot identify.
You assume our identity by our race. Is it not disheartening to you that such a narrow world view is legitimately held by so many? Does it not display a perspective so constrained to the contents of immediate life and prejudice? Is that not likely to lead to ignorant assumptions and offence in face of what is unbeknownst?
What becomes of the German Muslim, I wonder? Is he spared because he is white? Or is he declared a traitor and shunned? Is it difficult to choose between racism and neglecting a fellow countryman? Choose neither. Choose education. Tolerance. Kindness.
Detach from the vicious cycle of far-right media (who are unfamiliar with foreigners) feeding the far-right populace (who are unfamiliar with foreigners) what they should think about foreigners.
I ask you, have you ever met a Muslim? "Met" is not a synonym for shouting abuse at or stabbing to death in or outside their home. No, have you ever sat with a Muslim? Talked to a Muslim? Worked with a Muslim?
You should. At an airport perhaps, where we are 42 times more likely to be searched, and thus declared safe for human interaction."
Sincerely,
A Real-Life Muslim (not the ones on TV)
Hopefully the Germans won't go back into the awful habit of racism again. Last time, it ended badly for everyone in Germany.
As a descendent of a people who have been persecuted, enslaved, and massacred, the Muslims have my sympathy. You just can't judge someone by the color of their skin, or by their religion, any more than you can judge a book by it's cover.
As a descendent of a people who have been persecuted, enslaved, and massacred, the Muslims have my sympathy. You just can't judge someone by the color of their skin, or by their religion, any more than you can judge a book by it's cover.
These are my 2 cents in the discussion:
http://www.ouest-france.fr/apologie-du-terrorisme-un-lyceen-nantais-poursuivi-pour-un-dessin-3119401 (About the source)
For those who don't know French or have trouble understanding what Google Translate says:
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/france-begins-jailing-people-ironic-comments
Double standards where?
PS. Before you start strawmanning, I am definitely opposed to killing, for whatever the reason.
http://www.ouest-france.fr/apologie-du-terrorisme-un-lyceen-nantais-poursuivi-pour-un-dessin-3119401 (About the source)
For those who don't know French or have trouble understanding what Google Translate says:
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/france-begins-jailing-people-ironic-comments
Double standards where?
PS. Before you start strawmanning, I am definitely opposed to killing, for whatever the reason.
Well, I'm not expecting this to help resolve matters.
But these is already happening. See: People being able to discriminate against gay folks under religious reasons.
Just in case you don't know, Spain pays 800k+ euros every fucking year to keep those fuckheads happy. Fuckheads which btw do nothing at all, and if they do something, it's bad (the princess' boyfriend/husband/whatever, Iñaki Urdangarín, is a good example, as he is being judged now for tax frauds (he's probably just gonna bribe the living hell out of all the jury, but oh well, there's more bad things about them). The ex-king Juan Carlos too, better known as the elephant hunter). Considering how the current government is beign """"""""""""forced"""""""""""" (I want to emphasize on them quotation marks) to cut down money from education and public health, those 800k+ would prove really useful.
Cresselia~~
Junichi Masuda likes this!!
This!
This should be said and shared. We should help them to voice out, either via facebook or other social media.
destinyunknown
Banned deucer.
I live in Spain, of course I know that. The point is that it's not necessary to change the system to cut down those expenses, we just need to actually enforce the laws and of course reduce the payment the royal family receives (I mean it doesn't really make sense that the cousin of the king gets money). Changing that is extremely easy to do, if politicians actually wanted to do it (they don't for some reason...), whereas changing the whole Constitution just to become a Republic is really costly and extremely time consuming (changing those parts of the Constitution is a lengthy process, and Spain has a lot of things to worry about atm like unemployment and external debt, which would have to be left unsolved while the Constitution is being changed).
If you have your hopes on the current government doing shit about it and enforcing laws, better dump it all in getting an unicorn. Seems way more likely
destinyunknown
Banned deucer.
When did I say that? And what does anything I said have to do with not changing the government?
You do not have to change the Constitution in order to change the government, that's what elections are for. The problem is that if we tried to change the whole system now, we would be without a government for ~6 months (in case everything goes smoothly, which it won't), potentially without even changing anything in the end. And that's disregarding the fact that trying to change the Constitution will make the radical and terrorist groups reappear and run riot, as we would be giving them the chance to do that.
Try to get informed...
I'll toss in my two cents.
The way that I see it, the issues with public responses go much farther than the war cries of neo/crypto-fascists. In particular, I'm disturbed by the trend of "Je Suis Charlie", the phrase showing solidarity with the victims, and standing for "free speech". I'm astonished and rather disgusted by the ready declaration of millions across the globe that they actively declare to support Charlie Hedbo, which throughout the years has been nothing short of bigoted, and was described by its editors as trying to alienate Muslims. Muslims as a whole have faced stereotypes that fuel harmful and unreasonable policies (both foreign and domestic) towards them. For instance, there's the targeting of all males age 18-65 by both United States snipers and drone operators in occupied, primarily Muslim nations. Then there's the illegal surveillance operations such as those undertaken by the NYPD and LAPD, and the mapping efforts done by other PDs.
Perhaps what's most perplexing is this pedestal of civilization that we place ourselves on, based upon the liberties citizens have. Because while we and our leaders speak a great deal of free speech and such, our nations typically don't guarantee them. It's ironic that France not only lacks a guarantee of free speech, but that there have been many recent high profile cases of expression leading to imprisonment. Israel, Spain, and even the United Kingdom are notorious for interfering with the press, be it through arrests of journalists (Israel and Spain), or destruction of records (all three). These sorts of behaviour (and more!) are regularly undertaken by western nations, and only show the pride we have for our "civilized" way of life is a load of sycophantic hypocrisy.
edit: and that's leaving out the fact that the United States, United Kingdom, ect are the ones empowering these terrorist groups.
The way that I see it, the issues with public responses go much farther than the war cries of neo/crypto-fascists. In particular, I'm disturbed by the trend of "Je Suis Charlie", the phrase showing solidarity with the victims, and standing for "free speech". I'm astonished and rather disgusted by the ready declaration of millions across the globe that they actively declare to support Charlie Hedbo, which throughout the years has been nothing short of bigoted, and was described by its editors as trying to alienate Muslims. Muslims as a whole have faced stereotypes that fuel harmful and unreasonable policies (both foreign and domestic) towards them. For instance, there's the targeting of all males age 18-65 by both United States snipers and drone operators in occupied, primarily Muslim nations. Then there's the illegal surveillance operations such as those undertaken by the NYPD and LAPD, and the mapping efforts done by other PDs.
Perhaps what's most perplexing is this pedestal of civilization that we place ourselves on, based upon the liberties citizens have. Because while we and our leaders speak a great deal of free speech and such, our nations typically don't guarantee them. It's ironic that France not only lacks a guarantee of free speech, but that there have been many recent high profile cases of expression leading to imprisonment. Israel, Spain, and even the United Kingdom are notorious for interfering with the press, be it through arrests of journalists (Israel and Spain), or destruction of records (all three). These sorts of behaviour (and more!) are regularly undertaken by western nations, and only show the pride we have for our "civilized" way of life is a load of sycophantic hypocrisy.
edit: and that's leaving out the fact that the United States, United Kingdom, ect are the ones empowering these terrorist groups.
Honestly, while I'm all for the "Je Suis Charlie" movement and the preservation of free speech, I think a lot of people are trying to hop onto that (especially right-wing groups in Europe) and using it instead as an Anti-Muslim movement as opposed to a pro-Charlie Hebdo movement. Free speech should be restrained to just that, speech - e.g., the Onion has the right to bash every ethnicity / religion on the face of the Earth but the line is crossed when people use mockery (as humor) and convert it to mockery intended to degrade / belittle alongside actions that reflect that. On that note, I think the response still speaks to anti-Muslim / anti-minority in the United States and by proxy Western Europe since both have similar conservative leaders ... which is again rather ironic - the conservative mindset is generally to call for individual freedoms (in this example, free speech) being protected at all costs, yet in practice most of the people who wield this mentality are myopic in that they only care about their free speech, which tends to lead towards racist tendencies IMO.
I'm a registered Libertarian voter, but I'm much more moderate than I used to be. I honestly see nothing wrong with the spread of "Je Suis Charlie," but I do see a problem with people attempting to hijack it and turn it into an anti-Muslim movement rather than a pro-free speech movement. (I have stated earlier that I am against organized religion)
Let's just set aside for a second whether or not the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in question actually constitute hate speech. Why should criticism of religion be off-limits? Now, I'm not talking about encouraging persecution of religious people or violence against religious people, but if a religion encourages a barbaric practice in its scripture, why shouldn't we criticize it? If not allowed to criticize religion, any barbaric practices they may be performing would go unchecked. Let's say, for example, criticism of metzizah b'peh, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish circumcision ceremony that has led to several infants contracting herpes (specifically, I'm talking about recent cases in NYC.) If criticism of religion in general constituted hate speech in the eyes of the law, then this practice would be allowed to go unchecked, which would make the problem a whole lot worse in the long run. As far as I know, Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were more or less criticizing the religion itself. They called your religion stupid. Who cares? They didn't advocate something like genocide of Muslims, and besides, criticism of atheism is okay but criticism of religion is somehow off-limits? Double standard much?
Now, let me just point something out. Free speech only means the government can't arrest you for what you say (obviously with exceptions, like incitements of violence.) It doesn't mean other people have to tolerate what you say. For example, even in the US, someone who says something racist at their job (or, these days, even on Facebook) would get fired (at least in California, where I live; might be able to get away with it in the South.) If the attack never happened, there probably would have been a good number of people who thought, "Man, these Charlie Hebdo cartoons were fucked up. Let's not read them anymore," but because they got attacked, these same people stood in solidarity with Charlie because they were victim of an unwarranted response to the attack. "Je Suis Charlie" followers are not necessarily Islamophobes. It's not about agreeing with what they said. It's about sympathizing with them because they were victim to an unwarranted and overblown response to what they said. This is not to say that there aren't followers of Je Suis Charlie who follow it out of Islamophobia; it's to say that the reasonable ones of the bunch don't necessarily do it because they agree with what Charlie said, but rather that they sympathize with them due to being victimized by an unwarranted attack, and to defend free speech even if they despise what they say; think that quote from Voltaire - "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I just thought I'd point that out because it seems like some people here don't really understand free speech / why people want to defend it. Of course, in reality, speech isn't totally unrestricted anywhere, and for good reason - You don't want libel/slander, incitements of violence, and the like running around. We need to consider what kind of speech is intended to put people in danger and give up said speech to also keep ourselves from being in danger, but for reasons stated in this post, disallowing blasphemy is not such a case. Just thought I'd point this out because it seems like some people here would totally be in favor of laws that disallowed blasphemy.
Let's just set aside for a second whether or not the Charlie Hebdo cartoons in question actually constitute hate speech. Why should criticism of religion be off-limits? Now, I'm not talking about encouraging persecution of religious people or violence against religious people, but if a religion encourages a barbaric practice in its scripture, why shouldn't we criticize it? If not allowed to criticize religion, any barbaric practices they may be performing would go unchecked. Let's say, for example, criticism of metzizah b'peh, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish circumcision ceremony that has led to several infants contracting herpes (specifically, I'm talking about recent cases in NYC.) If criticism of religion in general constituted hate speech in the eyes of the law, then this practice would be allowed to go unchecked, which would make the problem a whole lot worse in the long run. As far as I know, Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were more or less criticizing the religion itself. They called your religion stupid. Who cares? They didn't advocate something like genocide of Muslims, and besides, criticism of atheism is okay but criticism of religion is somehow off-limits? Double standard much?
Now, let me just point something out. Free speech only means the government can't arrest you for what you say (obviously with exceptions, like incitements of violence.) It doesn't mean other people have to tolerate what you say. For example, even in the US, someone who says something racist at their job (or, these days, even on Facebook) would get fired (at least in California, where I live; might be able to get away with it in the South.) If the attack never happened, there probably would have been a good number of people who thought, "Man, these Charlie Hebdo cartoons were fucked up. Let's not read them anymore," but because they got attacked, these same people stood in solidarity with Charlie because they were victim of an unwarranted response to the attack. "Je Suis Charlie" followers are not necessarily Islamophobes. It's not about agreeing with what they said. It's about sympathizing with them because they were victim to an unwarranted and overblown response to what they said. This is not to say that there aren't followers of Je Suis Charlie who follow it out of Islamophobia; it's to say that the reasonable ones of the bunch don't necessarily do it because they agree with what Charlie said, but rather that they sympathize with them due to being victimized by an unwarranted attack, and to defend free speech even if they despise what they say; think that quote from Voltaire - "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I just thought I'd point that out because it seems like some people here don't really understand free speech / why people want to defend it. Of course, in reality, speech isn't totally unrestricted anywhere, and for good reason - You don't want libel/slander, incitements of violence, and the like running around. We need to consider what kind of speech is intended to put people in danger and give up said speech to also keep ourselves from being in danger, but for reasons stated in this post, disallowing blasphemy is not such a case. Just thought I'd point this out because it seems like some people here would totally be in favor of laws that disallowed blasphemy.
I'd rather actually be able to hear the voices of marginalized people than defend the 'right' of scum to profit from being scum. Freedom of expression isn't worth anything when no one else can/will hear you.
as they say: "In space, no one can hear you misandry."
Also I don't think you'll find a single post in this thread recommending blasphemy laws, but cute straw-man, really speaks to how shitty the narrative has become as time has gone on.
Since when did holding freedom of expression sacred become anything other than a religious/cultural posture? Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that religious toleration (including toleration of atheists) isn't a Christian principle.
I don't care about being tolerated, I could be completely ignored by someone and still be said to be tolerated by that person. No one seeks toleration, that is some Christian bull shit buzzword that even 'atheists' (can a libertarian even be an atheist? sorry that can only be a disgusting joke) are starting to repeat. The new 'meme' that I recommend to you all is accommodation, which seems to imply more than just ignoring peoples' existence or wishing it away.
as they say: "In space, no one can hear you misandry."
Also I don't think you'll find a single post in this thread recommending blasphemy laws, but cute straw-man, really speaks to how shitty the narrative has become as time has gone on.
Since when did holding freedom of expression sacred become anything other than a religious/cultural posture? Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that religious toleration (including toleration of atheists) isn't a Christian principle.
I don't care about being tolerated, I could be completely ignored by someone and still be said to be tolerated by that person. No one seeks toleration, that is some Christian bull shit buzzword that even 'atheists' (can a libertarian even be an atheist? sorry that can only be a disgusting joke) are starting to repeat. The new 'meme' that I recommend to you all is accommodation, which seems to imply more than just ignoring peoples' existence or wishing it away.
Last edited:
excuse me? who did you vote for in the last election? probably a terrorist who burns people alive, among other horrible things.
get a reality check, a state is a terrorist organization recognized by other states as sovereign over a certain territory.
get a reality check, a state is a terrorist organization recognized by other states as sovereign over a certain territory.
Myzozoa-
So to paraphrase what you have said, a state is a terrorist organisation recognised by other terrorist organisations that are sovereigns over certain territories as a sovereign over a certain territory?
That sounds confusing, now doesn't it?
So to paraphrase what you have said, a state is a terrorist organisation recognised by other terrorist organisations that are sovereigns over certain territories as a sovereign over a certain territory?
That sounds confusing, now doesn't it?
Whats confusing about it? It is a description: globalization, which is the colonial project, demands instantiating states over all territory. You being confused by it does not make it confusing, nor is this some idea that I am the first to propose. All major theories of international relations (something not studied by journalists apparently, or you for that matter, but the journalists, unlike you i hope, are paid to lie in creative ways) would find this conception of a state perfectly familiar.
I know thinking is really hard, but just because it takes the news a fewweeks years to realize whats going on doesn't mean you can't do it yourself.
http://static.ow.ly/docs/0 Tilly 85_5Xr.pdf
cited by over 2000 according to google scholar babe.
I know thinking is really hard, but just because it takes the news a few
http://static.ow.ly/docs/0 Tilly 85_5Xr.pdf
cited by over 2000 according to google scholar babe.
Last edited:
Myzozoa I'm fairly certain we've all seen The Warriors, we just aren't all such edgelords about it. I don't always disagree with your opinions, you don't need to be so insulting when people do disagree with you.
If you want him to stop just stop responding to him.
As long as there are different races, there will be racism. As long as there are multiple religions there will be antisemitism. It's a truly sad fact of life, there will always be people who hate others, there were the Nazis, the KKK, the Conquistadors who killed thousands of Native Americans, the slave traders, and now the Muslim extremists. The Chinese religion of Taoism states that where there is good, there must be evil, shown in the symbol of Yin and Yang. As long as there are people who will help others, there will be people who hurts others. Just typing this kinda makes you give up hope for the homo sapiens.