No Key, that's actually not what I mean. I agree that the people that you describe exist (conservative, usually christian, right wing as fuck, xenophobic as hell etc.). I also agree that those people are wrong and this whole "guilt by association" tactic they are pulling is reprehensible.

But people who say stuff like you just did are just as extreme, but in the other direction, I am sorry.
1. Islam is not a race. Nor will it ever be. You can't be racist against an idea/beliefsystem. These 2 things do not mesh, no matter how many tumblr posts are written about it.
2. I think it's fair to say that especially in the internet, the leftist/progressive crowd uses slangs like "islamophobe" and "racist" to poison the well as soon as the argument becomes a little to nuanced for their liking. (I say this as someone who has voted for left parties everytime btw.)
3. I don't think it's unreasonable to have an honest discussion about the poisonous influence that religious fundamentalism can have on a society. And I also think that it's observable that the "fringe" radical groups in Islam are way bigger and more violent than in other organized religions today.
I don't think it's fair to say that this only stems from the fact that certain teachings of their holy scripture do advocate violence against infidels. There are a lot of geopolitical reasons behind the radicalization of the middle east. But I also think it's dumb that a certain subsection of people in the west want to silence all dialogue about this subject by saying: "But guys, the crusades were also bad".

I'm just gonna hop in and hop out and say what happened today was fucking terrible and I hope that the people guilty off this would go fuck off and die.


k bye

Yes Keyblade it is racist to call all adherents of Islam terrorists or the like, but to single out Islam as a political reality and containing harmful ideology that gives people impetus to perform acts of jihad is not.
Attacking a religion isn't by proxy attacking billions of peaceful adherents. The same way attacking a political ideology such as Nazism doesn't mean by proxy you are attacking the millions of Germans that were living underneath it's banner who did not subscribe to it's central tenets.

" Islam is not a race. Nor will it ever be. You can't be racist against an idea/beliefsystem. These 2 things do not mesh, no matter how many tumblr posts are written about it."

not that i agree but the people who use the term racist don't usually mean it literally but as a catch-all term for bigotry. so arguing that being against islam isn't racism is a bit of a non-sequitur to be honest. also, being against islam is as i said being against muslims simply by proxy so it's not surprising that can be construed as intolerance

"I think it's fair to say that especially in the internet, the leftist/progressive crowd uses slangs like "islamophobe" and "racist" to poison the well as soon as the argument becomes a little to nuanced for their liking. (I say this as someone who has voted for left parties everytime btw.)"

i mean being against islam is by definition islamophobic in the same way being against homosexuailty is homophobic. yes you can say you're against the ideology/way of life, but that still demonizes the people as a by-product, there's no getting around that

"I don't think it's unreasonable to have an honest discussion about the poisonous influence that religious fundamentalism can have on a society. And I also think that it's observable that the "fringe" radical groups in Islam are way bigger and more violent than in other organized religions today."

fully agree here, which is why the discussion should be nuanced as you've mentioned and distinguish between fundamentalism and mainstream interpretations of religion. also, what many people fail to take into account is that islamic fundamentalism wasn't borne in a vacuum, and isn't a purely the result of interpretation if religious text (if that was the case, why is this such a relatively recent historical phenomenon? islam has been around for almost 1.5 millenia). it's such an oversimplification of matters that you can't help but assume there is an agenda at play. there are countless geopolitical factors which are very much responsible and continue to fan the flames of all this hatred and violence. to ignore all of that and simply go "islam is a problem", is extremely ignorant.

the ignorance in itself isn't a problem, but the fact that this ignorance (unwittingly at times) demonizes an entire group of people is a problem. it's a vicious cycle that plays perfectly into the hands of groups like ISIS. the more muslims are demonized, the more these groups have a justification for their actions, and i fear that the politicization of attacks like these makes things worse in the long run

just yesterday I was watching a video of a Syrian being killed by a rocket/bomb in Syria. it's a wonder that the camera survived the explosion, you could hear his moaning while he was dying after the explosion, it was really hard for me to watch. then I scrolled down to see the comments and it was full of Americans going FUCK YE MERICA, celebrating and saying horrible things and I just got sick

then later the same day this happened, and a bunch of people from islamic states started posting happy posts "paris in flames" on social networks

everybody is just fucking sick, I can't stand this shit anymore

@ Key

I don't think we're far apart when it comes to the actual issues, but tbh I think it IS important that people don't use words like "racist" completely wrong and just equate it with all kinds of bigotry, because racist is a incredibly loaded term and everyone who get's called a racist is immediately backed into a corner in every discussion.

And I also do not agree that pointing out certain problems within the holy scripture of Islam demonizes all Muslims in turn. People like Hitchens, Dawkins etc. do (rightly) point out plenty of fucked up things in the bible and I don't see the internet being up in arms about it and calling them "christianphobe" or "racist against christians" (I mean you could probably find some crazy redneck white-supremacist who'd say that, but it's not really a popular opinion).

You can be against parts of the ideology that make up islam (as it's written in their scriptures, obviously there are a lot of people who only follow certain things or interpret it differentely) without demonizing everyone who is part of it.

No you're not that far apart, except Key is addressing them much more maturely and with a greater understanding

Thx for your input.

I happen to disagree. Seriously though. What a worthless comment.

"You can be against parts of the ideology that make up islam (as it's written in their scriptures, obviously there are a lot of people who only follow certain things or interpret it differentely) without demonizing everyone who is part of it."
Certainly and particularly so when you're having a more mature discussion or academic conversation about these issues. But when you're talking about a highly politicized topic in public you can't ignore the effect that certain statements are going to have. What with all the right wing populism that has recently gotten so super trendy in Europe and people getting super emotional (i.e. making them fall more easily for blanket generalizations, xenophobia and all that jazz).

Reducing the complexity of the issues at hand to "mostly religion" is also reductionist to a mindblowing degree. Not saying you did that but there are people out there who sure as hell tend to do that.

@ Wolfhorde. Yes I agree on everything you said, I just don't think that the kneejerk reaction in the opposite direction (i.E.: whoever says anything bad about islam is now a "demonizing xenophobe racist bigot") is correct either.

It's not, duh. It depends on the context, as with everything else.

"saying isis and the westboro baptists use the same means is disingenuous"

so you didn't read it then. I didn't say they use the same means, I'm not comparing the conduct of Westboro with ISIS, they're in totally different leagues; what I said is that the cherrypicking of certain parts of religious doctrine, at the exclusion of other parts, making that the focus of their actions, was common between both groups. Westoboro scan a 2000+ page book and find the couple of paragraphs that in any way back up or elude to their closed-minded ideals. ISIS look through the Qu'ran and find the bits that say 'everyone should follow this religion, do shit to those who don't' etc. and use it to push their own ideals.

"nevermind love thy neighbour, kill those unnatural homosexuals!, thats the main message of the bible, trust us we're a powerful organisation in a world where individuals don't have power" see what I'm getting at?

If you look through the bible, you will find support for stoning adulterers. Had i been born an asshole, I could've very easily convinced a group of intensely devout (read: Extremist) followers that it was their god given duty to stone adulterers to death. When you have a large group of people who do not have access to the same kind of free thinking, informed society as the one we share, where religion is more than just a choice, it is an indisputable fact of life, then you can see why it is so easy for groups like ISIS to twist a few paragraphs into a coda and feed it to a group of under-educated people who have all likely witnessed the Wests involvement and been convinced they're all heretics who deserve to die. Whether it is Christianity, Islam or whatever you want, anything can be manipulated for selfish means.

I get that you know that. I don't think it's common sentiment in a certain crowd. (Look at the way some people are acting in this thread)

'This discussion wasn't what I was expecting on the 'Zipper Down' thread'

Ok, this is what happens when I open Sputnik before the BBC. Apologies all.

"I get that you know that. I don't think it's common sentiment in a certain crowd. (Look at the way some people are acting in this thread)"

I don't think anyone was specifically implying that, though. I think it was more about making blanket statements in regards to such issues, i.e. saying "islam promotes violence".

You should have Doofus, in light of recent events

"And I also do not agree that pointing out certain problems within the holy scripture of Islam demonizes all Muslims in turn"

I absolutely agree with you, there is certainly problems with the Qu'ran and there is nothing wrong with pointing them out and discussing/criticising that. There's a new testament of the bible for a reason, the old one was outdated. The current qu'ran is outdated to a free thinking, equal and accepting society, but most of the Middle East is not at a point where society is at odds with the scripture, because their culture has simply not reached that point of development yet.

^ That is a bit simplistic. The rise of Wahabism and radical Islam is a very recent event as others have already pointed out. Things were much more moderate a mere 50-80 years ago. It's also a bit far fetched to assume that everyone there is uneducated. Again, the issue is much more complex than that.

And as with every work, particularly ideological works are subject to interpretation - i.e. whether scripture demands this or that is ultimately not all that relevant if major groups of adherents decide that it isn't.

There's more than meets the eye with the whole ISIS situation, the west could wipe out 90% of their 'forces' within a fortnight with little sweat.

You have to ask why they don't. There are no easy solutions.

I highly doubt that.