(01-14-2017, 04:45 PM)Donald Dank Wrote: Yes, that was what I was trying to say. It's the extreme that are trying to impose their ways but that view is shared by a percentage of those fundamentalists who wouldn't attempt it themselves but tacitly support those that do.

I made an edit re legislation while you were responding so I don't think there's anything to discuss there.

I think the best way to counter this would be to break up the de facto segregation a lot of communities have developed, saw a doc on NI schools and how they're doing this by redrawing catchments and basically forcing different communities together. Think it's an interesting idea, these problems develop when people are allowed to fester in ignorance.

With regard to your first point - true, but is 'tacit support' an issue? A tiny minority of fundamentalists use violence, a larger minority maybe support it but wouldn't use violence themselves, a larger minority again maybe try to impose 'their way of life' in non-violent ways, a larger number again (maybe not a minority by this point?) don't try to impose their way of life on others but don't have a problem with those who do... it's difficult to determine exact proportions, but at some stage we're into the territory of thought crime. You could make the same points about just about any extreme system of thought: it seems to me like you could make similar arguments about the right of the right and racism, for example. I disagree with these people's positions, but any form of censorship would still represent a greater threat to 'our values' than their views do (as an aside, I find it interesting that for all people might condemn the far right, it's rarely framed as a threat to Western values - only Islam seems to get that treatment).

Edit: I think we largely agree on legislation/censorship. The main points of disagreement are maybe on terminology and on the size of what we both agree is a minority. I don't like to talk in terms of 'Western values' because I think it validates the idea of there being a clash of civilisations.

Yes it is an issue because they provide a platform, audience and approval for the actions of the violent. We're not talking thought crime because I don't think I'm arguing for the law to act against these people but for society to recognise what is going on.

If I were to ask you if white supremacist sympathisers were an issue what would you say? The kind of person I have in mind is someone who is a law abiding citizen in every respect, but they enjoy the literature and preachings of famous racists, read forums about the stuff and have a "they had it coming" attitude towards race based crimes they see in the news? That's all thought, but society does and should challenge it, right?


Let's not forget that extreme islamic fundamentalists engage in censorship within our society, there are numerous cases of silencing through murder and/or intimidation of artists, film makers, cartoonists, writers and politicians.

I know your thoughts on clash of civilisations, I respectfully disagree. On terminology I do know what you mean about crossed wires so I do my best to make it absolutely clear who I am discussing when these topics come up.

(01-14-2017, 07:01 PM)Donald Dank Wrote: Yes it is an issue because they provide a platform, audience and approval for the actions of the violent. We're not talking thought crime because I don't think I'm arguing for the law to act against these people but for society to recognise what is going on.

If I were to ask you if white supremacist sympathisers were an issue what would you say? The kind of person I have in mind is someone who is a law abiding citizen in every respect, but they enjoy the literature and preachings of famous racists, read forums about the stuff and have a "they had it coming" attitude towards race based crimes they see in the news? That's all thought, but society does and should challenge it, right?

If this is your argument then we're basically saying the same thing - I even touched upon white supremacism in my above post by relating the idea of 'concentric circles' within fundamentalist Islam to something similar existing within the mainstream right. My stance on white supremacist sympathisers is exactly the same as it is on those who sympathise with radical fundamentalists: their views should be challenged, but through dialogue and education. I'll also underline what I said in my last post: if Salafists are 'a threat to Western values and civilisation', so are white supremacists. That criticisms of white supremacists are rarely framed in those terms is significant in itself.

Quote:Let's not forget that extreme islamic fundamentalists engage in censorship within our society, there are numerous cases of silencing through murder and/or intimidation of artists, film makers, cartoonists, writers and politicians.

Well yeah, exactly - and that is always roundly condemned because it goes against 'Western values'.

This is probably running down more narrow routes with each response, I think that there is greater need for analysis and condemnation of these views from everyone in society, and not just when it leads to violence. Government can play a role in this through limited policy, they seem to have had some success with the deradicalisation programme that's running now, but you can't legislate your way out of this and ordinary people have a responsiblity to get informed, raise the tone of the debate and challenge.

I don't think I argued that the law or violence should be the response to this, but that taking a view is important and not screaming 'islamophobia' when this is discussed. The problem is too many people can repeat a part of an argument they heard, but don't express it cleanly enough, or the person they are talking to lacks little more than a basic understanding of the subject then people retract to their 'islam bad'/'racism bad' basic positions, which could be considered right/left to try and make that point really simple.

I'll accept that a lot of people (maybe right wing maybe not) who rail against Islam know far less about it than me, and I know very little, but I also think a lot of the people (maybe left wing maybe not) who lambast the other side and throw words like racist and islamophobe about do so against arguments they don't really understand either, even if they had been expressed more eloquently.

(01-14-2017, 08:28 PM)Donald Dank Wrote: This is probably running down more narrow routes with each response, I think that there is greater need for analysis and condemnation of these views from everyone in society, and not just when it leads to violence. Government can play a role in this through limited policy, they seem to have had some success with the deradicalisation programme that's running now, but you can't legislate your way out of this and ordinary people have a responsiblity to get informed, raise the tone of the debate and challenge.

I don't think I argued that the law or violence should be the response to this, but that taking a view is important and not screaming 'islamophobia' when this is discussed. The problem is too many people can repeat a part of an argument they heard, but don't express it cleanly enough, or the person they are talking to lacks little more than a basic understanding of the subject then people retract to their 'islam bad'/'racism bad' basic positions, which could be considered right/left to try and make that point really simple.

I'll accept that a lot of people (maybe right wing maybe not) who rail against Islam know far less about it than me, and I know very little, but I also think a lot of the people (maybe left wing maybe not) who lambast the other side and throw words like racist and islamophobe about do so against arguments they don't really understand either, even if they had been expressed more eloquently.

I agree with the underlying point of this post even if I don't agree with your position: basically, people need to educate themselves more on the issues. On one side you have people looking at terrorist attacks and thinking that that represents Islam (as opposed to a very small subset of Muslims), and on the other there are people who avoid discussing fundamentalism at all beyond saying 'yeah but it's not all Muslims'. A proper dialogue will be impossible until people properly understand the issues involved. While people going out and educating themselves on these issues would be nice, realistically it won't happen; in that context more nuanced media coverage and political interventions would be nice, which also won't happen.

As much as I think it's important to challenge radical views (Muslim or otherwise), I think it's more important to deal with the structural issues that are leading people to become radicalised in the first place. That won't happen either. Everything is terrible.

(01-14-2017, 08:52 PM)Makween Wrote: Everything is terrible.

As much as people are entrenched in their own views on this topic of Islam/Islamism in the west, the biggest step forward would be to stop misrepresenting the views of the other side by listening to them.

Also not judging them by their worst arguments, which is admittedly what I did that started this exchange but if the world was more like TalkHearts then we'd probably get to the bottom of it.  

Imagine a world that was like Talkhearts

Somebody's shot up a nightclub in Playa Del Carmen. 8 people dead at the moment.

Chelsea Manning to be released in May, as opposed to 2045, in one of Obama's parting gift thingys.

It's an awfy shame, but I instantly regretted not including Ms Manning in my deathpool.

Quite right.

Snowden should be next.

(01-17-2017, 09:30 PM)Alan Partridge Wrote: Quite right.

Snowden should be next.

But unlikely:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/17/us/po...tence.html

(01-17-2017, 09:30 PM)Alan Partridge Wrote: Quite right.

Snowden should be next.

He has contrasted Manning with Snowden apparently.

Wonder if he'll free Mumia.

Trope of a thousand rap songs.

Things become clearer.

Hope he has trolled them

Not sure what i think about this tbh.

Did he not put a lot of security services lives in danger by releasing all their info. People like spies etc?

Should be hanged for treason

Rape trial for Assange plz.

Assange to have information extracted from him leading to treason trial for Trump plz

That's enough about AP though

(01-17-2017, 10:49 PM)Morph Wrote: Not sure what i think about this tbh.

Did he not put a lot of security services lives in danger by releasing all their info.  People like spies etc?

Even if she did, she has still spent 7 years in jail. A lot of it in terrible conditions. I'm not sure what there is to gain from keeping her in there and her inevitable suicide in the coming months.

(01-17-2017, 10:49 PM)Morph Wrote: Not sure what i think about this tbh.

Did he not put a lot of security services lives in danger by releasing all their info.  People like spies etc?

Fake news! Sad!

Eagerly awaiting Trumps tweet on this