Over seventy dead in vehicular attack in Nice, France
- Thread starter Callate
- Start date
dunam said:
It tends to go hand-in-hand with people who believe that everyone who's brown should be deported and all of the borders should be closed to immigration.LegendaryGamer0 said:
The very simple reason that these things get conflated is because many people who individually identify as separate groups share exactly the same beliefs, just expressed in slightly different ways. I can't even count the number of people I've read who separately identify as MGTOWs, PUAs, or MRAs all express the same ideas about how women are awful because they control the "sex market", and black people need to all be killed before they "contaminate" "our women" and cause "white genocide".Gorrath said:
You know what.
Forget it. I'm not interested in this. People don't actually care about listening to what someone else says once that person has been identified as their ideological opponent, and it's really just not worth it for me to get roped into yet another argument that comes down to No True Scotsman.
I want to live in a society where no idea is considered sacred or infallible because no idea exists in government or society as a simple platitude. If someone decides that "women's rights" means that men should be second class citizens, I'm not going to agree and want the democratic power to fight back. This is why I pointed out the issue with "human rights" there is no agreement on what constitutes or should constitute a "human right." The world doesn't run on platitudes, it runs on nuance and no idea no matter how well intentioned is incapable of being bastardized in the name of a totolitarian "for the good of the people" power grab.Madmatty said:
That is why people must be free to express opinions (as distinct from calling people to violence), no matter how toxic because once you start deciding that some things are sacred cows or that other ideas are too toxic to be allowed to even be thought, you begin to empower the oppression of all ideas. This is why freedom of speech is a cornerstone of Western Democracy.
Kind of reminds me of the San Bernardino and Orlando attacks and you have the POTUS dancing around to blame guns while being careful in his words about the perps, and yet the Charleston church shooting, oh no, we're totally blaming guns and the shooter.dunam said:
We need an Olympic event for Mental Gymnastics.
If you're not interested, that's fine and I won't press you on it but I will say that I am not the kind of person who dismisses people just because I don't agree with them on a subject. I listen, read, do my best to understand and reply in good faith as much as humanly possible. I don't want to rope you into a discussion you don't want to have but if I came into a thread, said a bunch of stuff about feminism being total shit and then ended by saying I didn't actually want to talk about it, it might irk feminists who have some choice responses to my criticism.shrekfan246 said:
So again, I will totally leave you alone on that issue unless you decide you want to talk about it later but lobbing a hot potato at me and then skipping out because you're sure I'm just going to be dismissive of you isn't exactly fair to me. I mean you no offense I just replied hoping you can see why what you said is troublesome for me.
Its just an observation, not personal opinion, but...
I find it ironic how people (who stand for democracy, equality and tolerance) because of their believes allow certain groups (some of which believe in completely opposite values) into their countries and then cry about #phobias when someone points its out.
As it stands, believing in democracy equals allowing others to overthrow it as long as it is done in a democratic way. If you try to stop that you will become part of problem too... is democracy really a good system? Should we go then for some kind of authoritarian regime? But wait, we are switching now to dictatorship to avoid dictatorship...
Is there any solution to this problem?
I find it ironic how people (who stand for democracy, equality and tolerance) because of their believes allow certain groups (some of which believe in completely opposite values) into their countries and then cry about #phobias when someone points its out.
As it stands, believing in democracy equals allowing others to overthrow it as long as it is done in a democratic way. If you try to stop that you will become part of problem too... is democracy really a good system? Should we go then for some kind of authoritarian regime? But wait, we are switching now to dictatorship to avoid dictatorship...
Is there any solution to this problem?
Finally someone's talking sense. I guess what I'd do is root out any organizations supporting sharia law and exile their members to whatever country their relatives came from and offer apostates of Islam safety with us and I would treat them better than Islamists ever did. I'd also encourage criticism of Islam and I'd deport anyone I knew to be sharia law promoters. I just want what I call a controlled democracy also I'd recruit Muslims who hate sharia law and give them special benifitsdunam said:
Democracy is a shitty system, it's just the best system we've got. You can have authoritarianism even in a democracy depending on what laws are passed but that's why a constitution is so important to a democracy. Codifying certain basic rights as almost immutable helps curb the degradation of freedom even under democratic rule. The nature of people is to turn to authority in times of crisis, often bargaining away their freedom for temporary security. Constitutions help make such bargains difficult to achieve, though not impossible. It's a good system, in comparison, but not without its flaws.MJpoland said:
*SIGH* Bless all of you incredibly literal-minded souls. All right, if we have to go that route, there must never have been a point in time when the human race numbered fewer than about 400,000, then, because we would have killed ourselves down to an unviable level in a single human gestational period. In 2012, 437,000 people were murdered; there were 527,040 minutes in 2012. We may have gone entire days without a murder! Woo-hoo.LegendaryGamer0 said:
Britain recently commemorated the Battle of the Somme, the first day of which saw over nineteen thousand British troops lose their lives. Over half a million Rwandans lost their lives during the Rwandan genocide of 1994. I won't even bother going into the crimes of men like Stalin and Hitler; suffice it to say I am aware of them.
Yesterday, according to the latest reports, eighty-four innocent people lost their lives, including ten children. Eighty four deliberately targeted innocent celebrants.
On top of that, on an unrelated but personal level, I just got word that a friend I've known since grade school died in a hospital at the age of forty.
I am sick at heart. And your presuming to "inform" me that the world has never been a civilized place is of less than no value. That you find such minor and obvious hyperbole warrants a lecture does not speak well.
So yeah, I scrolled back through a few pages of discussion about "Sharia law" (most of it, admittedly, seemingly from one person) and Syria.. and seriously, what the fuck does anything of this have to do with what actually happened?
What actually happened, from what we can tell, is that a French man of Tunisian descent who was a Muslim (but, according to his neighbours, not very devout) went on a rampage and killed a lot of people with a rented truck before being shot dead by police. In the truck, he had a real pistol, which he used to fire on police, and a bunch of other weapons which later turned out to be fakes or dummies. He was estranged from his children and his wife, from whom he had separated, and was described as "a loner".
He was not known to security services, and had never been flagged for signs of radicalisation. He had never visited Syria or Iraq.
I think the question we have to start asking ourselves here is what would be required for a Muslim to commit a mass murder and have it not be labelled a terrorist attack or attributed immediately to Islamism rather than the same kinds of personal issues which cause white people to commit mass murder every so often.
Of course, we don't know everything so I'm not ruling out that it will turn out that Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel did have some connections to Islamist groups, but it's kind of telling that that's already the assumption, even though there's nothing to suggest it. Should who you are or what religion you were technically born into really determine the nature of crimes you commit, no matter how horrendous they may be?
What actually happened, from what we can tell, is that a French man of Tunisian descent who was a Muslim (but, according to his neighbours, not very devout) went on a rampage and killed a lot of people with a rented truck before being shot dead by police. In the truck, he had a real pistol, which he used to fire on police, and a bunch of other weapons which later turned out to be fakes or dummies. He was estranged from his children and his wife, from whom he had separated, and was described as "a loner".
He was not known to security services, and had never been flagged for signs of radicalisation. He had never visited Syria or Iraq.
I think the question we have to start asking ourselves here is what would be required for a Muslim to commit a mass murder and have it not be labelled a terrorist attack or attributed immediately to Islamism rather than the same kinds of personal issues which cause white people to commit mass murder every so often.
Of course, we don't know everything so I'm not ruling out that it will turn out that Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel did have some connections to Islamist groups, but it's kind of telling that that's already the assumption, even though there's nothing to suggest it. Should who you are or what religion you were technically born into really determine the nature of crimes you commit, no matter how horrendous they may be?