Society/Culture Why I blame Islam for the fact it's raining today.... part 2

[Chief]

Reminder: This isn't the Israel/Hamas thread. Go to the Israel/Hamas thread if you want to talk about that. Thanks.

Mid East - Israel declare war after Hamas attack II

Part I: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/israel-declare-war-after-hamas-attack.1371828/page-47#post-81443295 Thread Rules: Alright. I recognise that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[CM86]

https://assets.publishing.service.g...nt_data/file/944206/Group-based_CSE_Paper.pdf
That's a link to the PDF 2020 paper.











https://www.csacentre.org.uk/app/uploads/2023/09/CSA-trends-in-official-data-2020-21.pdf
That's a link to the "Child sexual abuse in 2020/21: Trends in official data" PDF.




Both are worth reading, for anyone who actually cares about this issue, and isn't just using it as an excuse to parrot racist talking points to spread fear and hate.

It also goes into detail in how there is under-representation of non-white offenders due to the victims fear of coming forward and the impact it can have on them and their families in their community. Muslim communities, for example.


My position is to ensure that all victims feel safe and able to come forward.
Which is not a society we will create by promoting misinformation, fear and hate.


What do the rest of you think? Should we ensure victims feel accepted in our community, so they're able to come forward and be saved?
Or should we spread fear, hate and lies in order to ensure they have nowhere to go?

I'd rather we understand where the system is failing, and how to fix it.
What about you? Would you rather we ignore the failings of the systems, and just focus on a single group of vicious offenders to promote ideological hatred, ignoring the failings of the systems, the causes, the impacts etc?
Or, would you rather find ways to ensure children are safe?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Wrong thread. The leader of the gang involved in the most high profile court case surrounding this issue in the UK was actually Sikh not Muslim. There's actually reams written by "progressives" about female objectification and sexual violence on the Indian subcontinent and it crosses religious divides.

I'm not familiar with that case specifically and the issues with Rape on the sub continent are well known so it would not surprise me at all. I read many examples of Pakistani perpatrators - which to my knowledge would be Islamic and therefore relevant to this thread.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I know he hung out with Christians, but what religion was Epstein?

 

[CM86]

It is perfectly fine to mistreat Muslims

This is just where we are now, as a society.

And I accept that.
It's probably a majority opinion in Australia now.

I don't know how to combat it.
Australian's are being radicalised in the same way people are in the UK.


I hope we don't start seeing violent mobs on the street targeting non-whites.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

I know he hung out with Christians, but what religion was Epstein?

I believe the un-mentionable one. I wouldn't raise it further.

 

[sr36]

I'm not familiar with that case specifically and the issues with Rape on the sub continent are well known so it would not surprise me at all. I read many examples of Pakistani perpatrators - which to my knowledge would be Islamic and therefore relevant to this thread.

My point is your attributing everything to Islam rather than other embedded aspects of culture and society. Just look at South America. Catholics are obviously right into drug smuggling, kidnapping and murder, right? Do we want these Catholics with their cartels and their private armies. I mean just look at some of the other organised crime in the Catholic world. No more Catholics.

It actually used to be quite common for employment ads to say: Catholics need not apply.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

So there's one religion which never gets accused of sexual assaults.

Satanists.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

My point is your attributing everything to Islam rather than other embedded aspects of culture and society. Just look at South America. Catholics are obviously right into drug smuggling, kidnapping and murder, right? Do we want these Catholics with their cartels and their private armies. I mean just look at some of the other organised crime in the Catholic world. No more Catholics.

It actually used to be quite common for employment ads to say: Catholics need not apply.

You're absolutely right. If I had it my way we would have absolutely zero immigration other than high skilled migration. The third world, be they Islamic, seik, catholic or whatever is incompatible with Australian values.

 

[sr36]

You're absolutely right. If I had it my way we would have absolutely zero immigration other than high skilled migration. The third world, be they Islamic, seik, catholic or whatever is incompatible with Australian values.

Which of your values, which you're ascribing to the country, are Colombians and Italians incompatible with?

 

[liz]

There is an important differential. The report on the Catholic church handing of claims of historical child sexual abuse was from a national inquiry.

Despite clear links between the causes of child sexual abuse by men of Pakistani background across the UK, and subsequent failures by the authorities to protect these girls, the government has refused to hold a national inquiry.

What would be the specific focus of such an inquiry?

The Catholic Church (and the Anglican Church, which has had similar failings) and institutions that enjoy status and protections in UK society. They are organised and have their tentacles in many steands of society that imply trust and integrity and involve pastoral care of young people.

An investigation into the structural failings of such institutions that enabled and covered up systematic abuse of young people has a sharp focus.

In contrast, how would a national enquiry investigate “Islam” (or any other broad religious group) based on a notion that lots of sex offenders identify with such religion? A broad faith group is not an organised institution.

 

[adammania9]

How do you think we should mistreat Usman Khawaja?

Look down on him for dragging from his nation with him a religion that does is incompatible with a modern society

 

[adammania9]

This is just where we are now, as a society.

And I accept that.
It's probably a majority opinion in Australia now.

I don't know how to combat it.
Australian's are being radicalised in the same way people are in the UK.


I hope we don't start seeing violent mobs on the street targeting non-whites.

Getting closer. The news of the complete and abrupt failure that has been migration of Middle Easterners to Europe can't be hidden for much longer. Look at Poland. That's a nation that can control their border!

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I think the point is: Islam does appear to have a near monopoly on gang r@pe.

There it is, the stupidest thing I've read all week. Read about literally any military conflict on earth and you'll find reports of gang rape.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

It is perfectly fine to mistreat Muslims - Muslim men in particular - who moved to non-Islamic nations and didn’t leave their religious practices at the door. Their archaic and brutal religion disrupts every culture it invades.

So if a Muslim man moved here, went to the mosque every Friday, chose not to eat pork or drink alcohol, and otherwise just kept to themselves and didn't hurt anyone or spread hatred, it's perfectly fine to mistreat them?

 

[sr36]

Look down on him for dragging from his nation with him a religion that does is incompatible with a modern society

I assume you realise that huge numbers would consider your beliefs to be incompatible with a modern society?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

There it is, the stupidest thing I've read all week. Read about literally any military conflict on earth and you'll find reports of gang rape.

I didn't realise English towns were warzones? News to me.

 

[CM86]

The reason that 'progressives' so often oppose anti-Islam rhetoric, is because it's almost always used as a tool for anti-Arab/immigration rhetoric.

And it comes down to people having the opinion that people from the Middle East and Africa etc, are genetically inferior to 'white' people.
The belief that 'they' are genetically unable to integrate into 'white' society.


It ignores socio-economics, war, global conflicts and destabilisation etc. And comes purely down to the concept that 'non-white' people are inferior to 'white' people. And 'non-white' people are a danger to 'white' people.


They will talk about 'white' culture, or 'white' values etc etc. But whenever that is pushed for a point of clarity, it comes down to just being 'white'.



The idea that you can, let alone should, target a demographic for exclusion, mistreatment, violence should be roundly dismissed by a 1st world country.
But fear, hate and misinformation has taken us back a long way.

I'm not calling people out for this.
I'm past the point of accepting our Country for where it is. Where the UK is, where the USA is.
I'm no longer going to say you're a bad person for holding these views.
Now I'm just looking to understand why. And I'm looking for how to actually combat this dangerous and regressive movement.

 

[CM86]

Getting closer. The news of the complete and abrupt failure that has been migration of Middle Easterners to Europe can't be hidden for much longer. Look at Poland. That's a nation that can control their border!

What do you think should happen to Middle Easterners that currently live in 'white' countries?

I actually appreciate that you're not just hiding behind 'religion' on this. And I'd like to better understand your positions if you're willing?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

The reason that 'progressives' so often oppose anti-Islam rhetoric, is because it's almost always used as a tool for anti-Arab/immigration rhetoric.

And it comes down to people having the opinion that people from the Middle East and Africa etc, are genetically inferior to 'white' people.
The belief that 'they' are genetically unable to integrate into 'white' society.


It ignores socio-economics, war, global conflicts and destabilisation etc. And comes purely down to the concept that 'non-white' people are inferior to 'white' people. And 'non-white' people are a danger to 'white' people.


They will talk about 'white' culture, or 'white' values etc etc. But whenever that is pushed for a point of clarity, it comes down to just being 'white'.



The idea that you can, let alone should, target a demographic for exclusion, mistreatment, violence should be roundly dismissed by a 1st world country.
But fear, hate and misinformation has taken us back a long way.

I'm not calling people out for this.
I'm past the point of accepting our Country for where it is. Where the UK is, where the USA is.
I'm no longer going to say you're a bad person for holding these views.
Now I'm just looking to understand why. And I'm looking for how to actually combat this dangerous and regressive movement.

What is wrong, inherently, from anti immigration stance?

You look at two countries like Australia on the one hand and say India, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan on the other.

One of those countries is better than the other. It has better standard of living, lower crime rates, higher social trust.

You import individuals from those countries to the better country and to the extent they do not assimilate they make the better country worse. That is inevitable.

Why should the better country do that? Out of pity?

 

[Johnny Bananas]

I didn't realise English towns were warzones? News to me.

As usual, you miss the point, which is that men of all religions and no religion commit gang rape. Saying anyone has a near monopoly on it is hilarious.

 

[CM86]

What is wrong, inherently, from anti immigration stance?

You look at two countries like Australia on the one hand and say India, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan on the other.

One of those countries is better than the other. It has better standard of living, lower crime rates, higher social trust.

You import individuals from those countries to the better country and to the extent they do not assimilate they make the better country worse. That is inevitable.

Why should the better country do that? Out of pity?

Opposing immigration isn't inherently wrong.

I'm saying that we shouldn't hide discussions about pro/anti-immigration behind religions. When it's the ethnicity/country of origin that is actually being opposed.


There has only been a few people that I've had a discussion with around their stance on anti-immigration from specific countries.
We've agreed that religious ideology is not restricted by borders, visas or immigration. So we should be able to discuss them separately.

But every one of those discussions has ended up 'retreating' to using religion as their reason to oppose immigration.


I think most of the time it's a fear (reasonable) of being called racist etc, that stops people from just being honest about their positions.

But I think we are at a point now where we need to recognise that a large and growing proportion of the Aus, UK, USA, European population are racist. And that racism is just part of our culture now.

But my position is that I don't want it to be.
So I want to better understand people who arrive at 'racist' positions out of fear/concern/love for their family etc.
Because people like that aren't my enemy.

My enemy are the people who aren't scared, and are racist purely because of hate. And are taking advantage of fear to scare good people into becoming racist.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

What is wrong, inherently, from anti immigration stance?

You look at two countries like Australia on the one hand and say India, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan on the other.

One of those countries is better than the other. It has better standard of living, lower crime rates, higher social trust.

You import individuals from those countries to the better country and to the extent they do not assimilate they make the better country worse. That is inevitable.

Why should the better country do that? Out of pity?

It sounds like you view everyone in a society as being a monolith and equally responsible for the success or failure of that society. But every society has its hard workers and its dropkicks, and you're not differentiating between them. Do you think a hard working, law-abiding immigrant is better or worse for Australia than a locally born unemployed meth addict?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

It sounds like you view everyone in a society as being a monolith and equally responsible for the success or failure of that society. But every society has its hard workers and its dropkicks, and you're not differentiating between them. Do you think a hard working, law-abiding immigrant is better or worse for Australia than a locally born unemployed meth addict?

Not at all. There are undoubtedly good people from those cultures. I'm saying it's not worth the risk of finding the good eggs from the bad. As said above. Immigration should be limited to high-skilled individuals only. It is not necessarily a fair position, but it would be better for Australia.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Not at all. There are undoubtedly good people from those cultures. I'm saying it's not worth the risk of finding the good eggs from the bad. As said above. Immigration should be limited to high-skilled individuals only. It is not necessarily a fair position, but it would be better for Australia.

And if an Australian citizen wants to marry someone from overseas who isn't highly skilled?

And what about highly skilled individuals from those societies you see as worse? Should they be allowed here?

 

[FlowersByIrene]

And if an Australian citizen wants to marry someone from overseas who isn't highly skilled?

And what about highly skilled individuals from those societies you see as worse? Should they be allowed here?

Marriage and family visas of Australian citizens or permanent residence would obviously be acceptable.

The idea would be that highly skilled individuals have a job in Australia, usually well paid, they're educated, have the financial wherewithal to come to Australia. Those people have more to lose from being disruptive in a society and are therefore more likely to assimilate.

The same with partners and family. Assuming that their partner already exists in a strong Australian culture, they are less likely to be disruptive or destructive.

If you bring in unskilled migrants, refugees, and other non high skilled migrants there is a higher likelihood that they will not assimilate as they have nothing to lose by disrupting Australian society.