Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

... well, it doesn't help that you've been speaking in more-or-less support of an anti-refugee, anti-immigrant, heavily racist, bordering-extremist right-wing political group, k. If you're actually wondering about the how.

[k33n]

pro-refugee, pro-immigration,

Then how can you defend Pegida? It boggles the mind.

I don't defend Pegida, I attack those who view the people who attend their protests as automatic Nazis, instead of people who realize that the European Islamism is a big deal and have literally no other options available to them.

I comment because you guys are burning our house down and giving power to the right with your rhetoric.

Oh, we are? How exactly? What part of "our rhetoric" (as if there was such a thing, I'm pretty sure almost everyone here looks with at least a light squint at my posts) is so damaging to the liberal cause?
Has anyone here denied that doing something about what happened in Cologne is necessary? No.
Did anyone say that criticizing what some refugees do is wrong? No.
What is happening here is that you take valid criticism of stuff the right-wing is doing and applying it to everything they stand for instead of the thing actually criticized. I personally think that this is more effective in "burning down the house", because this is normally what right-wing nuts try to do to delegitimize leftist arguments.

Mostly the cultural relativism and refusal to accept the scale of global Islamism and what it means in a situation where the sources of mass migration is also home to many millions of Islamists. The religious and cultural issues have been made so highly taboo by us that the only people willing to talk about it are the fascists. That is an emergency situation for a democracy.

[SirQuiamus]

all this semantic bickering and concern trolling is uncalm and uncool

put a lid on it

[Rolepgeek]

I'mma ask right now that people don't use Islamist.

Adding -ist unnecessarily to things to make them into positions, particularly positions that are implied by that suffix to be evil (AND WHEN THERE'S A PERFECTLY GOOD EXISTING WORD TO USE) is not appropriate debate ta...

It is actually of dire importance to distinguish between Islamists and muslims.

No. It is of dire importance to distinguish between Extremists/Radicals, Fundamentalists, and Moderates. Using Islamist in that way allows you to tar both the person you're speaking to and the religion with the label by the connection.

Wrong. What you have written are called adjectives. How dangerous is a fundamental humanist, or a radical Jain? An Islamist is someone who want to impose Sharia law on society, whether through force or democracy. You can be the most fundamental or radical (meaning... yes surprisingly the actual definition of the word radical, like muslim LGBT groups) muslim out there and still be for the law of the land. This is a fairly surreal conversation to have, but others have have clarified this enough. It may be useful for you to know that Islamist is a term used extensively in muslim majority countries.

Then why not call it Shariahist? Or, you know, fundamentalist, since that's usually what we use for people who want to impose a religious code as standing law are called, regardless of means. 'Liberal', 'Muslim', and the vast majority of other descriptors are also adjectives. I'm not sure what you used to decide the 'actual' definition of radical, but everything I've ever seen, and indeed a cursory google search for the definition, is political neutral. It's related to sweeping changes that alter the very undercurrents of a society. If a nation already has Shariah law, people wanting to get rid of it would be radicals.

Fundamentalism: a form of a religion, especially Islam or Protestant Christianity, that upholds belief in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture.
secondary definition does include: strict adherence to the basic principles of any subject or discipline., which may have been what you were using when you were talking about humanism. But we aren't talking about humanism. In fact, I was talking about Islam.
Whether the term is used there or not is irrelevant. We don't use Christianist. (And since most Islamic nations don't have english as a primary language, I question whether the connotations are the same there). If you want to use Islamist for that specific definition, go ahead, fine. But don't let it seep into other meanings, if you're going to do that, like asking Sheb if he's an Islamist. That's bullshit and you know it.

Also, believing some cultures or religions are better than others (the corollary to what you said, k33n) is actually a distinctly right-wing sentiment. It's not necessarily wrong.

Wrong. Despite your wishes you will not be able to force most liberals out of the definition of the word.

...you have a basis for that, or are you just gonna say 'Wrong' and leave it at that? Because I can do the same thing. Unless you mean 'culture of tolerance' versus 'culture of intolerance', but that's not really the definition I got. (also as far as I'm aware, liberal is not inherently opposite to right wing, but that might be because I'm American)

Actually I cared about the refugee women getting raped constantly in the slums that Europe is erecting and abandoning. I was called a pig-dog right winger for that also.

Really? I mean, I searched the thread for it, and didn't see you bring it up at all. In fact, when Sheb brought up how Pegida only appeared to get interested once Arabs could be blamed, and thus he didn't think they were actually interested in women's rights, you only responded by asking if he was an Islamist. Didn't see anything about you being called a pig-dog right winger, either. Couldn't find anything about you being specifically called a right winger at all for that matter, though plenty of stuff saying your views appear to be similar to right-wing ones. Did you mean outside of the thread?

[k33n]

I use the term Islamist because that is what the Muslims being killed by them call them. The people who see religion as race and pretend to be progressive just *really* need to wake up. Showing them that their wording is perfect Islamist propaganda really helps.

And I was talking not about my Bay12 account.

all this semantic bickering and concern trolling is uncalm and uncool

put a lid on it

It really is not semantic bickering. These are intense and loaded words in a hurricane shit-storm global discourse. It is reeeeally important to get it right if the conversation is going to go anywhere rational and constructive.

[Antsan]

pro-refugee, pro-immigration,

Then how can you defend Pegida? It boggles the mind.

I don't defend Pegida, I attack those who view the people who attend their protests as automatic Nazis, instead of people who realize that the European Islamism is a big deal and have literally no other options available to them.

"Literally no other options"?
This is just bullshit. It's not like we've got a fixed set of political movements were you have to choose one.
No, these people choose to support Nazis, because they are too spineless or lazy to get their own movement rolling. I know this is hard, but no excuse for supporting xenophobia.

And that is exactly why political correctness matters: To actually be able to support the correct policies, not the ones associated with certain laden words. But no, that's too hard, and being loud about your opinion matters more than actually turning your opinion into constructive action. Rather give the appearance of supporting Nazis and then getting hung up about how you don't want to do that than having to deal with criticism all on your own.

I comment because you guys are burning our house down and giving power to the right with your rhetoric.

Oh, we are? How exactly? What part of "our rhetoric" (as if there was such a thing, I'm pretty sure almost everyone here looks with at least a light squint at my posts) is so damaging to the liberal cause?
Has anyone here denied that doing something about what happened in Cologne is necessary? No.
Did anyone say that criticizing what some refugees do is wrong? No.
What is happening here is that you take valid criticism of stuff the right-wing is doing and applying it to everything they stand for instead of the thing actually criticized. I personally think that this is more effective in "burning down the house", because this is normally what right-wing nuts try to do to delegitimize leftist arguments.

Mostly the cultural relativism and refusal to accept the scale of global Islamism and what it means in a situation where the sources of mass migration is also home to many millions of Islamists. The religious and cultural issues have been made so highly taboo by us that the only people willing to talk about it are the fascists. That is an emergency situation for a democracy.

Ah, and where did you see that in this thread?
It's not true that only fascists discuss these things. It's just that every sensible public discussion on the topic is soon infiltrated by people making outrageously xenophobic claims and when then someone goes on to argue against these it's made out to be an attack on discussing problems with immigration.
Multiple people here were talking about how important it is to properly deal with immigrant crime. There was disagreement on the topic but as far as I can tell nobody made a taboo of it and certainly there was nobody claiming that there weren't criminal immigrants or that we shouldn't do anything about them.
Before you butted in and accused Sheb of being Islamist for absurd reasons the whole discussion seemed more productive and certainly less confrontational.

And as I already said: Islam itself is not the problem. Islam has had it's phases when it was just as peaceful as our western culture is today (which still is far from perfect, of course, but that's kind of irrelevant to my point, right?). The problem isn't Islam but the lack of secularism, and Islam is as compatible or incompatible with the idea as any other religion.
Yes, there are cultural issues, but as the case is with culture, it's more complex than people supporting Pegida make them out to be.

[k33n]

Not many are actually being confrontational, you know. Although you clearly see it that way.
The issue *is* religion and culture, and a specific religion and culture, and this is neither racist or right-wing to observe. That it is implied is depressing and needed comment.

[Morrigi]

It is a point of fact that the only groups mounting serious protests against mass immigration in Germany are AfD and PEGIDA, both of which have been accused of Nazi sympathies. It is also unreasonable to expect average people to organize their own protests instead of joining protests that have already been planned by a group that shares some of their concerns. Also, shouting "Nazi!" instead of actually addressing and refuting their arguments with facts simply isn't constructive, and one day it will stop working. Every time you all shout "Nazi!", that day gets a little closer.

[Antsan]

@k33n:
I am aware that the issue is about culture and religion certainly plays into it and today it certainly is a specific culture and a specific religion (at least as long as you avert your eyes from parts of the world like Indonesia). But that is today, due to historical reasons, not due to the religion or culture it developed out of itself.

The problem I have is that talking about the religion and culture this prominently (and it is almost anything that Pegida&co talks about) implies a mono-causality that is disgustingly wrong and, well, likely to spread ill-informed xenophobia and preclude discussion about topics where doing something productive is way more likely to yield positive results.
I already repeated over and over how I think that the idea of keeping refugees away is untenable. This has nothing to do with a taboo, this is pragmatic, from my point of view. I may be factually wrong, but that still has nothing to do with forbidding a discussion about cultural problems.

It is a point of fact that the only groups mounting serious protests against mass immigration in Germany are AfD and PEGIDA, both of which have been accused of Nazi sympathies. It is also unreasonable to expect average people to organize their own protests instead of joining protests that have already been planned by a group that shares some of their concerns. Also, shouting "Nazi!" instead of actually addressing and refuting their arguments with facts simply isn't constructive, and one day it will stop working. Every time you all shout "Nazi!", that day gets a little closer.

Yeah, I know, people are too spineless or lazy to say what they want instead of tuning in to a chorus where they like one stanza out of three. That still doesn't make it better or acceptable and certainly doesn't absolve the movement they are a part of from it's flaws.
Pegida is promoting xenophobia. Their main topic is the "Islamization" of Europe, which is the idea that Europe will turn Muslim due to immigrants, which is such a ridiculous idea that I can only see it being used by people with a functioning brain if they want to spread xenophobic sentiments.
Since Petry took over int he AfD it is absolutely certain that they're xenophobic.

Please note that I talk about the movements here. I will try to get people who aren't xenophobic away from Pegida, but I am certainly not going to dismiss their worries right away, rather I am prone to share my worries about Pegida and the rise of xenophobia in Germany.

[Frumple]

The issue *is* religion and culture, and a specific religion and culture, and this is neither racist or right-wing to observe.

Nah, the racist and right-wing part of it is the complete or near complete lack of differentiation between the religions and cultures involved. The groups you've been talking about would be catching a lot less flak if they were actually holding issue against a specific religion or culture. But they're not, or at least seem to be doing just about everything in their power to act like they aren't.

And morg, you'll note that most folks (all of two them, though you have to dig back a 'lil to find helg's mention of it) that have been noting pegida's nazi relations have also been noting, y'know, the other problems involved with them. Also not so sure I'd agree with you on that average person bit -- most relatively sane folks I know wouldn't saddle up to one of the KKK-lite groups just because they were demonstrating for something they're in favor of. Maybe things are less polarized when it comes to stuff of that nature in the EU, I'unno.

[Graknorke]

Since when did protesting alongside a group mean that you're supporting them? Within the context of a particular issue, anyone who agrees with you is your ally. The alternative is that no groups would form at all, because there's no way you could get enough people who agree on everything.

[Antsan]

If you are marching alongside with people who are screaming paroles and waving banners in a protest that gives a certain impression. A protest is all about the impression that it makes.
You know, "support", not "endorsement".

[k33n]

@k33n:

The issue is that no religions are the same or anywhere close to equal. Just because you have skimmed the Bible and Koran and notice that are both are documents of barbarism and hate does not mean that all the religions read this way. There is a big reason why East Eurasia has a plethora of religions living side by side for thousands of years and that West Eurasia did not (until Secularism defeated Christendom.)

[martinuzz]

The issue *is* religion and culture, and a specific religion and culture, and this is neither racist or right-wing to observe.

Nah, the racist and right-wing part of it is the complete or near complete lack of differentiation between the religions and cultures involved. The groups you've been talking about would be catching a lot less flak if they were actually holding issue against a specific religion or culture. But they're not, or at least seem to be doing just about everything in their power to act like they aren't.

And morg, you'll note that most folks (all of two them, though you have to dig back a 'lil to find helg's mention of it) that have been noting pegida's nazi relations have also been noting, y'know, the other problems involved with them. Also not so sure I'd agree with you on that average person bit -- most relatively sane folks I know wouldn't saddle up to one of the KKK-lite groups just because they were demonstrating for something they're in favor of. Maybe things are less polarized when it comes to stuff of that nature in the EU, I'unno.

You cannot compare Pegida, or the Dutch anti-islam/immigrant party of Geert Wilders with a KKK-lite group, even though in ideology they might be nearly the same.
KKK-lite groups are in the side margin over in the US, because of what you said, polarization.

Yesterday's polls showed that if elections were held now, Wilders party would get 41 (out of 150) seats in parliament. That would nearly make it the largest party ever in the history of our democracy, the record standing at 42 seats for one party. That's no margin. That'd be the next prime minister, and consequently chairman of the EU, if election were held now (it's the Netherlands' turn for chairman role).
It's a case of people only hearing what they want to hear and being sheep. Same for a lot of people chanting with Pegida.

Morrigi is almost right when he says that you "cannot expect average people to organize their own protests instead of joining protests that have already been planned by a group that shares some of their concerns".
I'd change it to "you cannot realistically expect" for nuance.
Ideologically, I still do expect people to organize themselves, but looking upon the sad reality of fast rising populism, I cannot realistically expect that of the poorly educated (in historical awareness and basic solidarity) masses.
Neoliberal capitalism teaching people to only live for their careers being a big part of the problem there.

"Neoliberal democracy. Instead of citizens, it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralized and socially powerless.
In sum, neoliberalism is the immediate and foremost enemy of genuine participatory democracy, not just in the United States but across the planet, and will be for the foreseeable future." - Noam Chomsky

"If you work 50 hours a week in a factory, you don't have time to read 10 newspapers a day and go back to declassified government archives. But such people may have far reaching insights into the way the world works" - Noam Chomsky

[Frumple]

... mart, in case you haven't noticed, we've actually got a fairly substantial amount of support over here for fairly rabid racist/populist rhetoric. Probably not as organized or concentrated -- and I'd blame that, at least, on geography more than polarization -- but we definitely get a substantial amount of people in our political positions that run on more or less the same sort of platform. It's not really a side issue, unfortunately.