No you werent. You were making braod assumptions that are already proven to be wrong and you blame it on “Islam”, which implies “all Muslims”, despite there being evidence of psychiatric disorder in the suspect. Schizophrenia and other disorders with mania often express themselves in religious symbols. but if a psychatric ill person refers to Christianity would you say that this is Christianity for everyone? Probably not.
Also you should consider carefully, if you want to stir more anti-Muslim sentiment. When it comes to progroms, the people will not care if you are muslim, atheist, christian or jew. They’ll just see a “brown” person. You might get praise from the political right now, but they will not protect you, no matter how loudly you announce to be different from the other “brown people”.
Have you never asked yourself why so many people of this one religion turn out to have “psychological problems”? What are the chances of that statistically if, as you seem to suggest, religion has nothing to do with this?
Next, this person is trying to disassociate their skin color from their opinion, and in response you are insisting on essentializing them on the basis of biology. Have you considered how close this puts you to people you claim to abhor?
Have you never asked yourself why so many people of this one religion turn out to have “psychological problems”? What are the chances of that statistically if, as you seem to suggest, religion has nothing to do with this?
No, because this is horseshit. Muslims in Europe aren’t more violent than non muslims. They are more often subject to violence and discrimination by the white majority though. It is just that violence commited by muslims, or people claimed to be muslim is disproporitonately sensationalized by right wing media. Of course this is accompanied with white supremacists spurting desinformation and claiming every crime, where no information on nationality, skin colour or religion of the suspects is known, as being commited by muslims. Also violence against muslims is systematically underreported, but that would make for another dozens paragraphs.
and in response you are insisting on essentializing them on the basis of biology. Have you considered how close this puts you to people you claim to abhor?
You are wrong. I’m warning him, that this will be done to him, by the people whose agenda he is supporting, by making evidently false claims about the suspect and the treatment of the suspect. He is also blowing the right wing dogwhistle of violent muslims being “imported” to Europe. And the fascists whose position he is strengthening by doing this will not care. Just earlier this week an ex-muslim gay men of turkish origin wanted to join the German Nazi party AfD. He was met with calls to violence and having him deported, that led to him experiencing more racism and hostility in a few days, than in his entire life in Germany before. The fascist dogs will not accept him for blowing their whistle. They’ll tear him apart like everybody else if they get the chance to.
Muslims in Europe aren’t more violent than non muslims
In terms of terrorism, the statistics say otherwise. In terms of general crime, the prison statistics do too. Of course, you will explain all this away as a product of systemic discrimination. But does it not bother you that immigrants of other religions, who also may also have darker skins, do so much better in their adopted homelands?
Also violence against muslims is systematically underreported
This is conspiracism. It’s impossible to argue with, by definition.
It is just that violence commited by muslims, or people claimed to be muslim is disproporitonately sensationalized by right wing media
This common argument is interesting because the implication is that speaker is somehow intellectually superior than the person being addressed. We all have access to the same information, how come only you know how to avoid being indoctrinated? Are you saying I’m dumb? Go on, just come out and say, I won’t be offended.
Because that’s what underlies the argument. As it happens, and as you might guess, I personally am extremely well-informed, and almost entirely from mainstream professional journalists who are affiliated to boring organizations with serious reputations to protect. I am over-educated and I don’t go near sensationalist right-wing media, or social media. And in fact I don’t even vote for right-wing parties. How do you explain that? I think you should try a new tack: taking people’s opinions at face value rather than looking for manipulation, and listening to why people themselves say they think what they do.
Addendum. Downvoting is so much easier than finding a counter-argument, right? I will take it as proof that my points hit their mark. Good night.
Oh what is this? Ethno-nationalist terrorism being by far the most prevalent, by about factor 8-10 compared to jihadist terrorism? I am sure this must be a conspiracist source. Oh what is this? It is the European Council.
This is conspiracism. It’s impossible to argue with, by definition.
I fully agree, that you are trying to spread conspiracies and that it is moot to discuss further with you.
First off, I would just like to point out that I have not downvoted anyone in this thread. I do not censor other people’s opinions, however misguided I personally consider them. Apparently you do like to tape mask over the faces of people you disagree with.
he claims
You are getting lost in the claims and counter-claims. Their claim was that “Muslims are not more violent than non-Muslims”. Your claim is about who is committing terrorism. That is not the same thing.
The terrorist statistics have always skewed towards nationalists - but that is on the widest definition of terrorism. Arsons, letter bombs, and the like. But not the deaths caused by terrorism, which is what most ordinary folk are thinking about. That is Islamists, and has been for years. You should know that already, you seem well-informed. I will not speculate about your motives in ignoring it.
But now I am getting sidetracked too. My argument was about Islam versus other religions. And there, I’m afraid to say that the statistics are clear as day. And again, you both must know this already.
Regardless of color, I was saying that the west should be careful about Muslims. And I still say that. I don’t have any ulterior motives. Interpret it however you want.
There is no point in calling me a bigot without giving any reason.
Is it enough for me to say “you are right” to end this discussion? Because it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Because I don’t agree with most of your opinions and you don’t seem to be able to change mine.
At a guess, you seem to be talking to a member of a generation that never got contradicted during its childhood, that believes it has all the answers, that sees dissenters to its groupthink as social deviants who need be silenced. The Western enlightenment is yesterday’s news, we’ve moved on in the West! Well done for keeping your cool and staying polite.
Against a former Muslim, who fled a Muslim led country because of their Muslim laws. Telling them they’re a bigot for hating Islam is fucking condescending, white savior syndrome.
First of all, I’m a brown, middle-eastern person.
I was just trying to explain dangers of Islam. My country turned into shariah shithole in 20 years from secular.
“im Brown, I can’t be racist”
Lol
They said you’re anti non-white. I told them I’m not a white. That’s why I said “I’m brown”, dummy.
Bigoted means anti non-white? Interesting
hahahaha I’m just really laughing right now 😅 How can you extract that meaning from my words 🤷♂️
Reading them?
No you werent. You were making braod assumptions that are already proven to be wrong and you blame it on “Islam”, which implies “all Muslims”, despite there being evidence of psychiatric disorder in the suspect. Schizophrenia and other disorders with mania often express themselves in religious symbols. but if a psychatric ill person refers to Christianity would you say that this is Christianity for everyone? Probably not.
Also you should consider carefully, if you want to stir more anti-Muslim sentiment. When it comes to progroms, the people will not care if you are muslim, atheist, christian or jew. They’ll just see a “brown” person. You might get praise from the political right now, but they will not protect you, no matter how loudly you announce to be different from the other “brown people”.
The dangers of Islam are the assumptions I made. History will say am I was right or wrong.
IDC does anyone likes me or not. I’m person thinking exactly like this without pressure of “being different from other brown people”
Malaysia in a Muslim country (63%) with a Democracy Index of 7.30. Belgium is 7.64, Poland is 7.04.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Malaysia
Have you never asked yourself why so many people of this one religion turn out to have “psychological problems”? What are the chances of that statistically if, as you seem to suggest, religion has nothing to do with this?
Next, this person is trying to disassociate their skin color from their opinion, and in response you are insisting on essentializing them on the basis of biology. Have you considered how close this puts you to people you claim to abhor?
No, because this is horseshit. Muslims in Europe aren’t more violent than non muslims. They are more often subject to violence and discrimination by the white majority though. It is just that violence commited by muslims, or people claimed to be muslim is disproporitonately sensationalized by right wing media. Of course this is accompanied with white supremacists spurting desinformation and claiming every crime, where no information on nationality, skin colour or religion of the suspects is known, as being commited by muslims. Also violence against muslims is systematically underreported, but that would make for another dozens paragraphs.
You are wrong. I’m warning him, that this will be done to him, by the people whose agenda he is supporting, by making evidently false claims about the suspect and the treatment of the suspect. He is also blowing the right wing dogwhistle of violent muslims being “imported” to Europe. And the fascists whose position he is strengthening by doing this will not care. Just earlier this week an ex-muslim gay men of turkish origin wanted to join the German Nazi party AfD. He was met with calls to violence and having him deported, that led to him experiencing more racism and hostility in a few days, than in his entire life in Germany before. The fascist dogs will not accept him for blowing their whistle. They’ll tear him apart like everybody else if they get the chance to.
In terms of terrorism, the statistics say otherwise. In terms of general crime, the prison statistics do too. Of course, you will explain all this away as a product of systemic discrimination. But does it not bother you that immigrants of other religions, who also may also have darker skins, do so much better in their adopted homelands?
This is conspiracism. It’s impossible to argue with, by definition.
This common argument is interesting because the implication is that speaker is somehow intellectually superior than the person being addressed. We all have access to the same information, how come only you know how to avoid being indoctrinated? Are you saying I’m dumb? Go on, just come out and say, I won’t be offended.
Because that’s what underlies the argument. As it happens, and as you might guess, I personally am extremely well-informed, and almost entirely from mainstream professional journalists who are affiliated to boring organizations with serious reputations to protect. I am over-educated and I don’t go near sensationalist right-wing media, or social media. And in fact I don’t even vote for right-wing parties. How do you explain that? I think you should try a new tack: taking people’s opinions at face value rather than looking for manipulation, and listening to why people themselves say they think what they do.
Addendum. Downvoting is so much easier than finding a counter-argument, right? I will take it as proof that my points hit their mark. Good night.
he claims, not providing any source. But how about taking a proper look:
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/terrorism-eu-facts-figures/
Oh what is this? Ethno-nationalist terrorism being by far the most prevalent, by about factor 8-10 compared to jihadist terrorism? I am sure this must be a conspiracist source. Oh what is this? It is the European Council.
I fully agree, that you are trying to spread conspiracies and that it is moot to discuss further with you.
First off, I would just like to point out that I have not downvoted anyone in this thread. I do not censor other people’s opinions, however misguided I personally consider them. Apparently you do like to tape mask over the faces of people you disagree with.
You are getting lost in the claims and counter-claims. Their claim was that “Muslims are not more violent than non-Muslims”. Your claim is about who is committing terrorism. That is not the same thing.
The terrorist statistics have always skewed towards nationalists - but that is on the widest definition of terrorism. Arsons, letter bombs, and the like. But not the deaths caused by terrorism, which is what most ordinary folk are thinking about. That is Islamists, and has been for years. You should know that already, you seem well-informed. I will not speculate about your motives in ignoring it.
But now I am getting sidetracked too. My argument was about Islam versus other religions. And there, I’m afraid to say that the statistics are clear as day. And again, you both must know this already.
You have my sympathy, but this does not meaningfully change anything.
Your comment was still bigoted af.
Regardless of color, I was saying that the west should be careful about Muslims. And I still say that. I don’t have any ulterior motives. Interpret it however you want.
There is no point in calling me a bigot without giving any reason.
That’s not what you said.
And even that is a pretty fucking backward thing to type.
You give me new reasons every comment.
If you don’t see this, you ought to re-evaluate.
Is it enough for me to say “you are right” to end this discussion? Because it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Because I don’t agree with most of your opinions and you don’t seem to be able to change mine.
At a guess, you seem to be talking to a member of a generation that never got contradicted during its childhood, that believes it has all the answers, that sees dissenters to its groupthink as social deviants who need be silenced. The Western enlightenment is yesterday’s news, we’ve moved on in the West! Well done for keeping your cool and staying polite.
deleted by creator
Stop defending terrorists dude
He’s not defending terrorists, he’s defending Muslims
Against a former Muslim, who fled a Muslim led country because of their Muslim laws. Telling them they’re a bigot for hating Islam is fucking condescending, white savior syndrome.
I would never have been able to compose this sentence because I don’t speak English well. I agree with every word, every letter.
They blame us while we tell them what we have suffered.
Why categorize all French Muslims as killers when it’s obviously a tiny majority? There are between 3 and 5 millions of Muslims in France
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France
Islam can be used by an autocratic state to impose its regime, but current Russia or North Korea don’t need it to impose on their populations.
Categorizing several millions of people as killers because a few deranged people get radicalised seems shortsighted.
France is not a Muslim country.
Why categorize all French Muslims as killers when it’s obviously a tiny majority? There are between 3 and 5 millions of Muslims in France
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_France