3 ms·

You're right, my meme-trolling was a bit childish. However I have read some of Britain First's facebook pages and the comments there are hateful, vitriolic and

You're right, my meme-trolling was a bit childish. However I have read some of Britain First's facebook pages and the comments there are hateful, vitriolic and most of the time barely literate. I actually agree with most of what you said here. I believe that Islam does have some serious structural problems, along with many other religions. Muslim friends say that indeed the Quran is pretty transparently calling for non-muslim's death, and it seems to be seized upon readily as the raison d'être for many of these terrible groups. As for the asian sex grooming, this is exactly this kind of thing that far right groups jump on. Suddenly it's muslim grooming gangs vs a group of men abusing children. Don't forget that within the Catholic church there has also been widespread abuse that's been covered up by the church. Somehow there isn't a pervasive implication that being Catholic means that you're more likely to be a child abuser. In case there was any doubt, yes grooming children for sex slavery is more despicable than whipping up hatred for an entire religion based on said abuse. I believe the way to counter "lumping people together, generalizing and stereotyping" or othering is precisely to point out the flaws in logic and call it bigotry and hatred when you see it.

alphapapa 11y ago
Ok, thanks for explaining that. I briefly glanced at Britain First's own web site (not their Facebook page), and while "nationalism" sounds a bit dangerous to me, the specific policies they advocate don't sound evil to me. On the contrary, they advocate things like a bill of rights to protect people, and enforcing existing laws. No doubt, people who agree with some of their goals, but for different, more hateful reasons, will coalesce around them and post comments on Facebook. I'm still not making any claims about the organization one way or the other, but my point is just that, if your opinion of them is based upon comments posted by individuals on their Facebook group page, that doesn't seem fair. It's good that there are some Muslims who are admitting that their scriptures are advocating these evil actions. I hope that they are being sincere and seeking the truth. But their scriptures also advocate deceiving opponents for the sake of advancing the cause. This is not a popular thing to talk about, because it sounds like calling all Muslims liars--which I am not doing. But it's a simple fact that the command exists. And this needs to be dealt with just as much as the other commands in it. Yes, the Catholic church has perpetrated much evil over its history. I don't defend it at all. However, it's still important to distinguish between what some Catholic clergy have done, what an average Catholic would do, and what the Catholic scriptures call for and condemn. That child abuse that some Catholic clergy have committed is condemned in their own texts. So to compare the Catholic church's abuses (especially its recent ones) and recent jihadist terrorist acts is a serious case of apples-and-oranges. It's misleading. > I believe the way to counter "lumping people together, generalizing and stereotyping" or othering is precisely to point out the flaws in logic and call it bigotry and hatred when you see it. I think you have to be very careful when trying to mix claims of logical analysis with accusations of bigotry and hatred. Maybe it's like setting off sparks around flammable liquids: doing it in a controlled environment like an engine can result in useful work; but doing it carelessly results in explosions and harm. It's just too easy to call one side ugly names instead of calmly refuting arguments. And once one person does it, other people pile on, and before you know it, one side is being drowned out by baseless accusations and childish name-calling. Besides that, it assumes that one side knows what is in the other's heart and mind, what their motivation and unstated goals are. I think, if you look throughout history, most of the evil and violence and war and death comes, not from being logical, but from causing bigotry and hatred by being bigoted and hateful, by calling others ugly names, accusing them of being innately evil, and accusing them of thinking and desiring things which they do not. And unfortunately, the anonymity provided by the Internet allows such behavior to flourish in pockets here and there. It takes more effort to call for calm and reason and thoughtfulness than it does to drown it out with name-calling and mob-stirring. Well, anyway, thanks for being reasonable and actually discussing, rather than calling for censorship and downvoting, like some here have done.
- dang 11y ago
  Religious flamewars are not welcome on Hacker News. Please stop this now and don't do it again.
Nadya 11y ago
>Somehow there isn't a pervasive implication that being Catholic means that you're more likely to be a child abuser. That stereotype largely only applies to Catholic priests, not Catholics. Also, to my knowledge, it's not a stereotype largely taken serious but is more of meant as a sly joke. Usually involving a choir boy in some way. Largely to mock the Churches cover-up of the issue years back. >I believe the way to counter "lumping people together, generalizing and stereotyping" or othering is precisely to point out the flaws in logic and call it bigotry and hatred when you see it. I don't know the statistics regarding this specific issue in a larger context (ie: Muslim Grooming Rings) and only saw the single article regarding the rather massive case not too long ago. But let's talk stereotypes and historical (and modern) facts. Stereotypes happen because by-and-large they are true. It's how they form. Sure, there are the exceptions to the stereotype but few people speak in a manner as to make exclusions when exclusions are relatively rare compared to the blanket statement [^]. Why are "all Muslim's terrorists"? Because Islamic extremists are the most popularized, militant, and active terrorist groups. In my lifetime, I've never once heard of a modern-era Christian terrorist group. (Does "God Hates Fags" count?) Even the Crusades, the closest thing to "Christian Extremists" that I can think of, was the reaction to a Jihad launched by a new Sultan (as was the norm of the time). The emperor of Constantinople requested help from the other Christians in western Europe because of Muslim aggression. The Jihadists hadn't expected to meet such a large force - and when the Crusaders took back their lands they pushed back even harder. Political muckery and unheld promises turned the Crusaders largely against the people they originally set out to help, which is main reason for the divide between Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox to this very day. The demonization of the Crusades as a "black stain on Christian history" only came about in the 18th or 19th century (I forget which) because somehow it turned into a largely offensive war rather than a largely defensive war because the history behind it wasn't being taught. Every single terrorist group I can think of off-hand, from Africa to the Middle East is a group comprised of self-declared Muslims [0]. Reading the Qur'an also shows the extremists are the "proper Muslims", like it or not. Selective choosing of which passages to follow are how you get the 'nice' Bible and the 'nice' Qur'an. Both books are full of evil that simply gets ignored because it is more convenient or "doesn't apply to people of our time" or "was the norm. in the past". In our increasingly "liberal and tolerant" western world we're turning a blind eye towards issues because it would be "racist" to point to history or "intolerant" to call something what it is. A children's cartoon illustrates this perfectly [1]. What makes it all-the-worse is it is increasingly impossible to try and defend these positions or point to history. Nobody[^] wants to be a called a racist/sexist. So much as pointing to statistics or trying to explain why a position is wrong (ie. wage gap) is impossible. Defending such a position makes you a sexist and you don't want to be a sexist do you? It's a form of societal control through coercive punishment (how many people have lost their jobs for making a possibly-sexist/racist comment now?) If you can't make people think like you, you can at least silence them. You trying to blanket everything as bigotry or hatred makes you part of what I see as the problem. Not everything is bigotry, not everything is racist, and pointing to history and statistics as backing for why a certain belief is held does not make one bigoted. [0] Super-majority are Islamic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_g... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUdHA5liNec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUdHA5liNec [^] Nobody wants to be a racist or sexist, except the people that don't fit that stereotype. Just proving a point here about blanket statements. Do we usually exclude such people when making a statement like this? No.

alphapapa 11y ago

Ok, thanks for explaining that. I briefly glanced at Britain First's own web site (not their Facebook page), and while "nationalism" sounds a bit dangerous to me, the specific policies they advocate don't sound evil to me. On the contrary, they advocate things like a bill of rights to protect people, and enforcing existing laws. No doubt, people who agree with some of their goals, but for different, more hateful reasons, will coalesce around them and post comments on Facebook. I'm still not making any claims about the organization one way or the other, but my point is just that, if your opinion of them is based upon comments posted by individuals on their Facebook group page, that doesn't seem fair. It's good that there are some Muslims who are admitting that their scriptures are advocating these evil actions. I hope that they are being sincere and seeking the truth. But their scriptures also advocate deceiving opponents for the sake of advancing the cause. This is not a popular thing to talk about, because it sounds like calling all Muslims liars--which I am not doing. But it's a simple fact that the command exists. And this needs to be dealt with just as much as the other commands in it. Yes, the Catholic church has perpetrated much evil over its history. I don't defend it at all. However, it's still important to distinguish between what some Catholic clergy have done, what an average Catholic would do, and what the Catholic scriptures call for and condemn. That child abuse that some Catholic clergy have committed is condemned in their own texts. So to compare the Catholic church's abuses (especially its recent ones) and recent jihadist terrorist acts is a serious case of apples-and-oranges. It's misleading. > I believe the way to counter "lumping people together, generalizing and stereotyping" or othering is precisely to point out the flaws in logic and call it bigotry and hatred when you see it. I think you have to be very careful when trying to mix claims of logical analysis with accusations of bigotry and hatred. Maybe it's like setting off sparks around flammable liquids: doing it in a controlled environment like an engine can result in useful work; but doing it carelessly results in explosions and harm. It's just too easy to call one side ugly names instead of calmly refuting arguments. And once one person does it, other people pile on, and before you know it, one side is being drowned out by baseless accusations and childish name-calling. Besides that, it assumes that one side knows what is in the other's heart and mind, what their motivation and unstated goals are. I think, if you look throughout history, most of the evil and violence and war and death comes, not from being logical, but from causing bigotry and hatred by being bigoted and hateful, by calling others ugly names, accusing them of being innately evil, and accusing them of thinking and desiring things which they do not. And unfortunately, the anonymity provided by the Internet allows such behavior to flourish in pockets here and there. It takes more effort to call for calm and reason and thoughtfulness than it does to drown it out with name-calling and mob-stirring. Well, anyway, thanks for being reasonable and actually discussing, rather than calling for censorship and downvoting, like some here have done.

dang 11y ago
Religious flamewars are not welcome on Hacker News. Please stop this now and don't do it again.

Nadya 11y ago

>Somehow there isn't a pervasive implication that being Catholic means that you're more likely to be a child abuser. That stereotype largely only applies to Catholic priests, not Catholics. Also, to my knowledge, it's not a stereotype largely taken serious but is more of meant as a sly joke. Usually involving a choir boy in some way. Largely to mock the Churches cover-up of the issue years back. >I believe the way to counter "lumping people together, generalizing and stereotyping" or othering is precisely to point out the flaws in logic and call it bigotry and hatred when you see it. I don't know the statistics regarding this specific issue in a larger context (ie: Muslim Grooming Rings) and only saw the single article regarding the rather massive case not too long ago. But let's talk stereotypes and historical (and modern) facts. Stereotypes happen because by-and-large they are true. It's how they form. Sure, there are the exceptions to the stereotype but few people speak in a manner as to make exclusions when exclusions are relatively rare compared to the blanket statement [^]. Why are "all Muslim's terrorists"? Because Islamic extremists are the most popularized, militant, and active terrorist groups. In my lifetime, I've never once heard of a modern-era Christian terrorist group. (Does "God Hates Fags" count?) Even the Crusades, the closest thing to "Christian Extremists" that I can think of, was the reaction to a Jihad launched by a new Sultan (as was the norm of the time). The emperor of Constantinople requested help from the other Christians in western Europe because of Muslim aggression. The Jihadists hadn't expected to meet such a large force - and when the Crusaders took back their lands they pushed back even harder. Political muckery and unheld promises turned the Crusaders largely against the people they originally set out to help, which is main reason for the divide between Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox to this very day. The demonization of the Crusades as a "black stain on Christian history" only came about in the 18th or 19th century (I forget which) because somehow it turned into a largely offensive war rather than a largely defensive war because the history behind it wasn't being taught. Every single terrorist group I can think of off-hand, from Africa to the Middle East is a group comprised of self-declared Muslims [0]. Reading the Qur'an also shows the extremists are the "proper Muslims", like it or not. Selective choosing of which passages to follow are how you get the 'nice' Bible and the 'nice' Qur'an. Both books are full of evil that simply gets ignored because it is more convenient or "doesn't apply to people of our time" or "was the norm. in the past". In our increasingly "liberal and tolerant" western world we're turning a blind eye towards issues because it would be "racist" to point to history or "intolerant" to call something what it is. A children's cartoon illustrates this perfectly [1]. What makes it all-the-worse is it is increasingly impossible to try and defend these positions or point to history. Nobody[^] wants to be a called a racist/sexist. So much as pointing to statistics or trying to explain why a position is wrong (ie. wage gap) is impossible. Defending such a position makes you a sexist and you don't want to be a sexist do you? It's a form of societal control through coercive punishment (how many people have lost their jobs for making a possibly-sexist/racist comment now?) If you can't make people think like you, you can at least silence them. You trying to blanket everything as bigotry or hatred makes you part of what I see as the problem. Not everything is bigotry, not everything is racist, and pointing to history and statistics as backing for why a certain belief is held does not make one bigoted. [0] Super-majority are Islamic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_groups https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_g... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUdHA5liNec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUdHA5liNec [^] Nobody wants to be a racist or sexist, except the people that don't fit that stereotype. Just proving a point here about blanket statements. Do we usually exclude such people when making a statement like this? No.