News that makes you say WTF! (36 Viewers)

[Buck Fuddy]

Thanks for the explanation.

And here I was thinking that the word "racist" had been so often (mis)used that it has lost all meaning.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

Thanks for the explanation.

And here I was thinking that the word "racist" had been so often (mis)used that it has lost all meaning.

If you mean in the press or by people who want to feel victimized, yes, it probably has been mis- and overused. But with regards to immigration policies, 'racism' is also a legal term and it is applied more rigorously in courts.

 

[Raz]

If you mean in the press or by people who want to feel victimized, yes, it probably has been mis- and overused. But with regards to immigration policies, 'racism' is also a legal term and it is applied more rigorously in courts.

Yeah, but specificly if you target muslims based on religion how is it racist? It might be hateful but how is it racist? I mean even people that live there are of the same race...

 

[Ocelot]

It really sucks that we don't really have a term for "discrimination due to religion". Racism isn't technically correct, but colloquially it definitely fits.

And yes, it would definitely be racist in that sense of the word. You can argue that it's still necessary, I can imagine situations where such discriminatory measures would be justifiable, but in this case it isn't, simply because only such a tiny, tiny portion of Muslim immigrants are terrorists.

 

[Seven]

Yeah, but specificly if you target muslims based on religion how is it racist? It might be hateful but how is it racist? I mean even people that live there are of the same race...

In that case it doesn't have to be racist, but it is most definitely discriminatory.

 

[Raz]

How is islam a race? It would undermine our democratic values definitely, but not due to racism.

 

[Seven]

How is islam a race? It would undermine our democratic values definitely, but not due to racism.

I don't understand why you think this debate about semantics is relevant, if you agree that discrimination based on religion is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Zacheryah]

It really sucks that we don't really have a term for "discrimination due to religion". Racism isn't technically correct, but colloquially it definitely fits.

And yes, it would definitely be racist in that sense of the word. You can argue that it's still necessary, I can imagine situations where such discriminatory measures would be justifiable, but in this case it isn't, simply because only such a tiny, tiny portion of Muslim immigrants are terrorists.

religism ?

 

[Ocelot]

How is islam a race? It would undermine our democratic values definitely, but not due to racism.

But that's merely semantics.

- - - Updated - - -

religism ?

Some use religionism, but the problem with words is that the majority has to recognise their meaning for them being a thing

Religious discrimination is our best bet so far.

 

[PhRoZeN]

It really sucks that we don't really have a term for "discrimination due to religion". Racism isn't technically correct, but colloquially it definitely fits.

And yes, it would definitely be racist in that sense of the word. You can argue that it's still necessary, I can imagine situations where such discriminatory measures would be justifiable, but in this case it isn't, simply because only such a tiny, tiny portion of Muslim immigrants are terrorists.

I wonder how muslim Juventus fans must feel here knowing there are fellow fans who would happiliy discriminate them based on their religion. I think its unfair to blame a religion or a community based on a very tiny portion of extremists. I mean when you consider that there are like i dunno billions of muslims you would have thought the world would have blown up into smithereens by now.

 

[Raz]

I don't understand why you think this debate about semantics is relevant, if you agree that discrimination based on religion is fundamentally wrong.

Well, it's not really. If it's a definition as important as this then it should not be swept under the same blanket.

- - - Updated - - -

But that's merely semantics.

- - - Updated - - -



Some use religionism, but the problem with words is that the majority has to recognise their meaning for them being a thing

Religious discrimination is our best bet so far.

That is why we have the descriptions and meanings.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder how muslim Juventus fans must feel here knowing there are fellow fans who would happiliy discriminate them based on their religion. I think its unfair to blame a religion or a community based on a very tiny portion of extremists. I mean when you consider that there are like i dunno billions of muslims you would have thought the world would have blown up into smithereens by now.

I wonder how people that don't fallow tribal out dated rituals and don't dance around fire feel that a lot of Juventus fans are believing in fairy tales? They don't care.

 

[PhRoZeN]

I wonder how people that don't fallow tribal out dated rituals and don't dance around fire feel that a lot of Juventus fans are believing in fairy tales? They don't care.

They dont care but would happily discriminate against them and put them in the same boat as extremists out there? I think this is the real problem behind these attacks, it causes divisions on all sides, which breeds more hatred on both sides and more lives are lost as a result. Its like what came chicken or the egg in this case. You get some non muslims isolating muslims, these muslims then feel isolated and then start following some extremist offshoot part of their religion and then you get an attack. But why are the non muslims isolating these muslims? because of the attacks in the first place. Rinse and repeat.

 

[Raz]

They dont care but would happily discriminate against them and put them in the same boat as extremists out there? I think this is the real problem behind these attacks, it causes divisions on all sides, which breeds more hatred on both sides and more lives are lost as a a result.

It is a result. But islam has some dangerous stuff in it and people need to address that and acknowledge it and go from there. But islam isn't a centralised religion and there are millions of seperate "islams" nutjobs going around medieval, but somehow it's a taboo to say anything against it. Everything is good with religion, people are just bad... yeah right..

 

[PhRoZeN]

It is a result. But islam has some dangerous stuff in it and people need to address that and acknowledge it and go from there. But islam isn't a centralised religion and there are millions of seperate "islams" nutjobs going around medieval, but somehow it's a taboo to say anything against it. Everything is good with religion, people are just bad... yeah right..

I think its down to interpretation. There are sects in every religion, so you get some people interpreting their books in different ways. I dont believe a whole religion is the problem or a whole community, but certain sects, scholors or whatever you want to call them and its these people that are giving a bad name to the rest of them.

 

[Raz]

I think its down to interpretation. There are sects in every religion, so you get some people interpreting their books in different ways. I dont believe a whole religion is the problem or a whole community, but certain sects, scholors or whatever you want to call them and its these people that are giving a bad name to the rest of them.

Definitely not religion as a whole, but you got to agree that there are some disturbing stuff in the book and that should be ackwnoledged and dealt with rather then twisted and turned into something divine and holy good. It's a book written how to live 700 years ago, that should be updated. Believe in any god you want, but leaving supersticious vague sentences around leaves a lot to interpretation and springin up of radical and crazy medieval mofos.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Definitely not religion as a whole, but you got to agree that there are some disturbing stuff in the book and that should be ackwnoledged and dealt with rather then twisted and turned into something divine and holy good. It's a book written how to live 700 years ago, that should be updated. Believe in any god you want, but leaving supersticious vague sentences around leaves a lot to interpretation and springin up of radical and crazy medieval mofos.

Such as?

 

[PhRoZeN]

Definitely not religion as a whole, but you got to agree that there are some disturbing stuff in the book and that should be ackwnoledged and dealt with rather then twisted and turned into something divine and holy good. It's a book written how to live 700 years ago, that should be updated. Believe in any god you want, but leaving supersticious vague sentences around leaves a lot to interpretation and springin up of radical and crazy medieval mofos.

it's not the book, its the people as I explained, when isolated individuals feel like justification is needed they will dig out anything and of course there are manipulative evil "scholors" out there who take advantage of that. Education is the way forward, both in their own religion and in general. I mean how many of these terrorists (that attacked on western soil) were actually doctors or well educated? It will be a significant lower proportion, thats not to say a doctor cant get brainwashed per say.

 

[Seven]

it's not the book, its the people as I explained, when isolated individuals feel like justification is needed they will dig out anything and of course there are manipulative evil "scholors" out there who take advantage of that. Education is the way forward, both in their own religion and in general. I mean how many of these terrorists (that attacked on western soil) were actually doctors or well educated? It will be a significant lower proportion, thats not to say a doctor cant get brainwashed per say.

The book is problematic. So is the Bible. So is any book.

People who claim that the book in and of itself is not a problem face a contradiction imo.

Either you say that people interpret the book and that you have to take into account that it was written ages ago. This implies not taking the book literally, but rather taking away certain lesses from it. But the question then becomes, why not simply go for those lessons immediately? Interpreting the book makes it kind of pointless imo.

Or you do take the book literally and then you're faced with what are likely to be medieval practices. Which makes sense, as it was written ages ago.

 

[PhRoZeN]

The book is problematic. So is the Bible. So is any book.

People who claim that the book in and of itself is not a problem face a contradiction imo.

Either you say that people interpret the book and that you have to take into account that it was written ages ago. This implies not taking the book literally, but rather taking away certain lesses from it. But the question then becomes, why not simply go for those lessons immediately? Interpreting the book makes it kind of pointless imo.

Or you do take the book literally and then you're faced with what are likely to be medieval practices. Which makes sense, as it was written ages ago.

Yes but if it was problematic you would have had a hell of a lot of loonies blowing themselves up. Clearly there are a lot of peaceful muslims. So no, IMO not the book. Whatever people want to believe, is upto them. Im not against any religion, each to their own.

 

[Seven]

Yes but if it was problematic you would have had a hell of a lot of loonies blowing themselves up. Clearly there are a lot of peaceful muslims. So no, IMO not the book. Whatever people want to believe, is upto them. Im not against any religion, each to their own.

No, I'm saying the book is 'problematic'. I'm not saying that everyone who reads the book automatically has the impulse to go and blow up other people.