Hate Speech?

[Chae]

Thats a good quality quote, I got into a squabble with a girl once on that topic. People who define themselves by opposition to an idea lose their identity if that idea is defeated, so the end goal alot of times isnt change, its to moral peacock.

Yes, exactly. The real deal is about giving up being an opposition so that the very threat itself disappears (since Ying needs Yang and vice versa). You're right - change is not brought about when resisting or moralizing.

[Not A Communist Shill]

It is that, yes, but the fundamentalism goes well beyond that to the point of people like me questioning the sanity of the Jews. Yeah, the Muslims hate you with a passion that makes even Der Fuhrer blush (eg. if ye were but 1/8th Jew or below you weren't a Jew in his eyes making him a total cuck in the eyes of many a Neo-Nazi), yet you overwhelmingly welcome them in and call anyone who wants it to stop a bigoted xenophobe.

This is a critical weakness of the left, a lack of long term planning/perspective. The Muslims may well kill off all the Christians and burn their Cathedrals to the ground and ye may well welcome that end with mirthful glee. However, make no mistake, as far as they're concerned the SJW left is next. They're very much into a harsh patriarchy and you will be made to accept harems, female abuse and genital mutilation, and Arabic as your new national language whether you like it or not!

Same thing got Trump elected BTW. The left figured that if they could get next to half of all women on your side and got almost all minorities to vote that way as well you'd crush the Conservatives in damn near every election. Only one problem with that strategy (effective as it may be), however. If you take that route you by definition rely on wedge issues. You will Balkanize the country with that strategy long term and, when push comes to shove, you cannot win at the current time given current demographics and geopolitical realities (i.e. White people still comprise over half the population AND hold all the vital farmland even if they've abdicated to cities to hordes of "vibrant" diversity).

Basically, the left took the cities/culture but didn't take the countryside/actual productive class of blue collar workers. There's only one problem with doing that. The Countryside feeds the cities. The Country does not need the cities, but the cities need the countryside. Thus, if we really get down to brass tacks I just don't show up to the local Farmer's Market and keep all my produce to myself and leave the shitlib Western Civilization Hating Cucks to starve and eat each other in their desperation! You'd think they'd understand that basic fact but... well, a High IQ and a Ph.D doesn't mean shit if society collapses. Quantum physics and Calculus don't mean Jack Shit in a dark alley with only me, my gang, and our weapons versus a fatass unarmed and untrained in Martial Arts weakling leftist or out in the remote wilderness of the frontier where knowing how to start a fire without a lighter means the difference between staying warm and safe vs. being Bear Chow. Just saying...

It is fundamentalist views that make people who would otherwise be good people do bad things. When you believe your community has a god-given right to some land, it seems there is no limit to the terrible acts you can attempt to justify.

With Jewishness, Jewish identity is often inseparable between the religion and the ethnicity: while it is possible to criticise for example the Jewish religion or Zionism without being xenophobic, it seems that Jews are especially singled out for truly xenophobic comments, including of course the veiled kind. Islam is of course a religion and in no sense an ethnicity, so to be accused of be xenophobic because of criticism you made about Islam would be absolutely ludicrous.

I consider myself left wing but that does not mean that I tolerate religious totalitarianism. I think it is utterly unhelpful for you and others to resort to "left vs. right" rhetoric in such matters.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Technically, the reason our society condemns bigotry as such an injustice is because it discriminates against individuals based upon traits they cannot control, such as race and sexuality. Religion isn't an innate trait you're born with, it's a conscious choice to espouse a certain set of beliefs. Criticizing a belief system -- or even calling for sanctions against it -- is a far cry from "bigotry" against the individuals choosing to practice it.


If a belief system calls for behaviors that are clearly destructive to a given society, it's only understandable that this society will want to sanction that belief system. Sanctioning this belief system is not the same as persecuting individuals for their innate traits, because these individuals can abandon this belief system whenever they so choose.


Is the sanctioning of belief systems consistent with our ideal of a free, liberal, Democratic society?
No.
And that's why our society has busted its ass to avoid sanctioning any belief system unless it poses a clear and present danger to it. If any society can't feel free to defend itself from ideologies that directly threaten its proper functioning, it eventually collapses. If you want to have a society at all, you have to draw the line somewhere, and considering that all in all Western liberal democracy has demonstrated the best model of society we've yet seen in recorded history, it'd be a small sacrifice to keep her alive.


Criticism of belief systems is a fundamental part of intellectual life in the Western world. If your cultural collective can't handle that tiny little bit of criticism, fuck off with it.

It doesn't matter if people to choose to be a certain way or not as long as it is legitimate: any bigotry of legitimate lifestyles is intolerable.

The best predictor of a person's religion is knowing the religion of the person's parents, so in a sense, it is largely innate.

[Not A Communist Shill]

The bible outright condones slavery and beating slaves until they cant walk. Stoning women who are not virgins, etc.... I think theres gotta be some bias if the quran seems more violent to you then the bible.

As I've already said, the Christian bible plays far more emphasis on the New Testament, not the Old.

One textual study has shown that the bible does contain more violent passages than the quran, but that is because the bible is longer. As a percentage of passages, the quran is twice as violent: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.co...ble_quran.html

But this does not take into account that Jesus in the New Testament told his followers to not commit acts of violence:
"When they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." - John 8:7
"But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." - Matthew 5:39
"Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”" - Matthew 26:52-54

Whereas the qur'an by contrast says:
"Be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they suffer pain as you suffer pain." - quran 4:104
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement." - quran 5:33
"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." quran 8:12

Apart from the quran, the early imperialistic wars started by Muhammad and continued by his followers up to our own times make it clear that Islam is a religion of violence.

[Singu]

People forget about history... Islam was initially more tolerant than Christianity. Islam tolerated non-believers, as long as they paid their taxes and treated them as equal as the Islam believers, while Christians killed and decimated the non-believers (did we forget Crusaders?). "Saladin", the Islam warlord was greatly respected by even the Christians for his tolerance and generosity.

He even offered to pay for the surrendered Crusaders himself:

"Saladin told Balian that he had sworn to take the city by force, and would only accept an unconditional surrender. Saladin told Balian that Saladin's banner had been raised on the city wall, but his army was driven back. Balian threatened that the defenders would destroy the city along with the holy places, slaughter their own families and the 5000 Muslim slaves, and burn all the wealth and treasures of the Crusaders. Saladin, who wanted to take the city with as little bloodshed as possible, insisted that the Crusaders were to unconditionally surrender but could leave by paying a ransom of ten dinars for men, five for women and two for children; those who couldn't pay would be enslaved. Balian told him that there were 20,000 in the city who could never pay that amount. Saladin proposed a total of 100,000 dinars to free all the 20,000 Crusaders who were unable to pay. Balian complained that the Christian authorities could never raise such a sum. He proposed that 7,000 of them would be freed for a sum of 30,000 dinars, and Saladin agreed."

But I mean, they believe in the same God, so this is kind of pointless. Neither are as tolerant as say, Buddhism. But I'm not saying that those religions are "bad", they do serve their purposes and they do have good in them. We should be trying to improve them and make them more tolerant, and not just have a war over it.

[Not A Communist Shill]

People forget about history... Islam was initially more tolerant than Christianity. Islam tolerated non-believers, as long as they paid their taxes and treated them as equal as the Islam believers, while Christians killed and decimated the non-believers (did we forget Crusaders?). "Saladin", the Islam warlord was greatly respected by even the Christians for his tolerance and generosity.

He even offered to pay for the surrendered Crusaders himself:

"Saladin told Balian that he had sworn to take the city by force, and would only accept an unconditional surrender. Saladin told Balian that Saladin's banner had been raised on the city wall, but his army was driven back. Balian threatened that the defenders would destroy the city along with the holy places, slaughter their own families and the 5000 Muslim slaves, and burn all the wealth and treasures of the Crusaders. Saladin, who wanted to take the city with as little bloodshed as possible, insisted that the Crusaders were to unconditionally surrender but could leave by paying a ransom of ten dinars for men, five for women and two for children; those who couldn't pay would be enslaved. Balian told him that there were 20,000 in the city who could never pay that amount. Saladin proposed a total of 100,000 dinars to free all the 20,000 Crusaders who were unable to pay. Balian complained that the Christian authorities could never raise such a sum. He proposed that 7,000 of them would be freed for a sum of 30,000 dinars, and Saladin agreed."

But I mean, they believe in the same God, so this is kind of pointless. Neither are as tolerant as say, Buddhism. But I'm not saying that those religions are "bad", they do serve their purposes and they do have good in them. We should be trying to improve them and make them more tolerant, and not just have a war over it.

Christianity began with Christ, Islam began with Muhammad. Muhammad was responsible for more deaths in his own lifetime than Christ, that is indisputable. Again, Christianity in its core teachings specifically tells its followers not to kill, whereas Islam specifically orders its followers to kill, even in the case of "heretics". What self-described Christians and Muslims do is another matter entirely.

[Singu]

Christianity began with Christ, Islam began with Muhammad. Muhammad was responsible for more deaths in his own lifetime than Christ, that is indisputable.

Obviously, since Jesus was just a martyr and a reformer of Judaism... And Islam also believes in Jesus.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Obviously, since Jesus was just a martyr and a reformer of Judaism... And Islam also believes in Jesus.

So? Stalin also believed in Jesus.

You still seem to fail to take on my point. If the New Testament account is accurate, Jesus chose to martyr himself, and specifically told his followers not to fight and kill on his behalf. He certainly did not do what Muhammad did, which was order the deaths of people in his own lifetime, including waging wars and condoning terror, and founded a "religion" that expects its followers to kill and terrorise on its behalf.

[Not A Communist Shill]

[Not A Communist Shill]

In France recently, a teacher was murdered for showing cartoons depicting "Muhammad" in a class on free speech.

When President Macron upheld France's commitment to free speech, the governments of several Muslim countries started a boycott of France. A typical claim was that Macron was not respecting freedom of belief which I found ludicrous, especially considering that someone had just been murdered simply for showing cartoons.

Political leaders in Turkey and Pakistan have rounded on Mr Macron, accusing him of not respecting "freedom of belief" and marginalising the millions of Muslims in France.

On Sunday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan suggested, for a second time, that Mr Macron should seek "mental checks" for his views on Islam.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54683738

Has Erdogan denounced the murder yet? He has the wrong order of priorities in my view.

I am think I am correct in saying that France respects freedom of belief more than any "Muslim" (i.e. Muslim-majority) country on Earth. Sadly, most of them are not democracies so some of these boycotts at least can not be said to represent the wide population in any way.