4 ms·

If we look at the Abrahamic religions we see a lot of support of violence, hate and general unpleasantness. If we wanted to support the idea that everything tha

by belorn 8y ago

If we look at the Abrahamic religions we see a lot of support of violence, hate and general unpleasantness. If we wanted to support the idea that everything that is wrong with the world is caused by Muslims we only need to pick some quotes from the Quran that shows a belief that violence is acceptable against non-believers. It all describes toxic Muslim faith but in different terms. In the end through, talking about terrorism by framing it as part of Muslim faith is not an effective method to bring civil discussion and progress in eliminating terrorism. All it does it nourishing hate and polarization in society which in turn result in increased risk of terrorism. It forces people, Muslims in the case of toxic Muslim faith, to defend themselves regardless if they are terrorists or not and distance themselves with those who work against terrorism. If one want to actually eliminate terrorism it is better to avoid associating Muslim faith with terrorism and instead focus fully on the individuals that do the act of terrorism. We could be standing all day long talking about how a secularization of the middle east has normalized the idea that a healthy expression of Muslim faith is to slit the throat of unbelievers and blowing up bombs, or blame the west for their own victimhood. With the full knowledge that this will not help in reducing terrorism and only hurt those that identify as a Muslim and are not terrorist, why continue with such narrative? Why cause harm?

krapp 8y ago
>why continue with such narrative? Why cause harm? Because toxic masculinity exists, and it causes greater harm than wounds to the ego. Refusing to address the subject except through analogy only serves to create a false impression of the nature of the arguments being made, and to distract from the subject at hand. Pretending it doesn't exist as a systemic phenomenon only serves the status quo. Even if using the phrase will only result in men being defensive and getting triggered by it. It exists regardless, and society if left to its own devices will probably do nothing about it, or the harm that it causes, unless confronted and dragged kicking and screaming into a more just and equitable future. It is incorrect to claim that everything wrong with the world is caused by Muslims, but no one is making an equivalent claim about everything wrong with the world being caused by men or masculinity. It is incorrect to equate Islam with terrorism, but it is correct to equate toxic masculinity with male culture, because the two relationships are not perfectly equivalent, and not all analogies between them apply. And to cut to the chase, and what I believe is the intended implication of the equivalency you're trying to draw here, feminist critique is not equivalent to bigotry. So if you disagree with me, as you seem to (and fair enough,) then perhaps you could address the subject on its own terms?
- belorn 8y ago
  Refusing to address the issue is the catch phrase of the far rights view about immigration. It is a poor argument for hate speech regardless if it target someone based on gender or race. And no, status quo is not served by active addressing the issue rather than mud slinging. It is a well established fact that immigrants has a higher rate of crime and sexual assault. To take Swedish numbers, a Muslim immigrant is 1000% more likely to commit rape than a christian born Sweden. Refusing to debase the discussing by focusing on race and religious demographics does not mean Sweden ignore rape, nor that it is pretending that the problem does not exist (which the far right constantly accuse the government of). Instead the government create policy that address segregation, low income and other factors that plays into crime regardless of skin color or religious faith. A far cry from refusing to address the issue and serving the status quo. We know how to take the high road in regard to racism, and as a bonus it actually work. Feminist critique when used as an excuse for hate speech does neither. "Toxic masculinity" is misandry, plain and simple, and by continuing with such language all we get is more hate rather than effective policies that address the problems at hand. That is the disagreement I have with you.
  - krapp 8y ago
    Alright, I can see we can't even agree on terms here, so I'm going to bow out. Thanks for the mature discussion on the topic, though. Even though I disagree with you I'm glad you put more effort in than the usual casual dismissals and snark this sort of thread usually attracts.

by belorn 8y ago

krapp 8y ago

>why continue with such narrative? Why cause harm? Because toxic masculinity exists, and it causes greater harm than wounds to the ego. Refusing to address the subject except through analogy only serves to create a false impression of the nature of the arguments being made, and to distract from the subject at hand. Pretending it doesn't exist as a systemic phenomenon only serves the status quo. Even if using the phrase will only result in men being defensive and getting triggered by it. It exists regardless, and society if left to its own devices will probably do nothing about it, or the harm that it causes, unless confronted and dragged kicking and screaming into a more just and equitable future. It is incorrect to claim that everything wrong with the world is caused by Muslims, but no one is making an equivalent claim about everything wrong with the world being caused by men or masculinity. It is incorrect to equate Islam with terrorism, but it is correct to equate toxic masculinity with male culture, because the two relationships are not perfectly equivalent, and not all analogies between them apply. And to cut to the chase, and what I believe is the intended implication of the equivalency you're trying to draw here, feminist critique is not equivalent to bigotry. So if you disagree with me, as you seem to (and fair enough,) then perhaps you could address the subject on its own terms?

belorn 8y ago
Refusing to address the issue is the catch phrase of the far rights view about immigration. It is a poor argument for hate speech regardless if it target someone based on gender or race. And no, status quo is not served by active addressing the issue rather than mud slinging. It is a well established fact that immigrants has a higher rate of crime and sexual assault. To take Swedish numbers, a Muslim immigrant is 1000% more likely to commit rape than a christian born Sweden. Refusing to debase the discussing by focusing on race and religious demographics does not mean Sweden ignore rape, nor that it is pretending that the problem does not exist (which the far right constantly accuse the government of). Instead the government create policy that address segregation, low income and other factors that plays into crime regardless of skin color or religious faith. A far cry from refusing to address the issue and serving the status quo. We know how to take the high road in regard to racism, and as a bonus it actually work. Feminist critique when used as an excuse for hate speech does neither. "Toxic masculinity" is misandry, plain and simple, and by continuing with such language all we get is more hate rather than effective policies that address the problems at hand. That is the disagreement I have with you.
- krapp 8y ago
  Alright, I can see we can't even agree on terms here, so I'm going to bow out. Thanks for the mature discussion on the topic, though. Even though I disagree with you I'm glad you put more effort in than the usual casual dismissals and snark this sort of thread usually attracts.