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.

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

Thanks.

 

[faible]

This is my favourite part; illegal immigrants and refugees are affecting house prices. Because presumably they have so much money to be buying houses with as they flee and cross borders illegally.

ILLEGAL migration

refugees

it affects house prices

 

[smish]

This is my favourite part; illegal immigrants and refugees are affecting house prices. Because presumably they have so much money to be buying houses with as they flee and cross borders illegally.

Oh dear. It's not too late to delete this mate.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Islam is growing faster than christianity. Probably because christians keep killing each other.

Yeah and I'd argue, non religion is the fastest growing religion, outstrips both, certainly here in Aus

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Yeah and I'd argue, non religion is the fastest growing religion, outstrips both, certainly here in Aus

Except that's not a religion. Perhaps read the words you typed again?

 

[Number37]

This is my favourite part; illegal immigrants and refugees are affecting house prices. Because presumably they have so much money to be buying houses with as they flee and cross borders illegally.

Some people don't understand that it is government policy for the population of Australia to grow.
Remember when Costello told everyone to have a baby?

Nobody ever complains that the value of their house has tripled or quadrupled in the last 20 years.
They usually attribute that to hard work. Or some such bullshit.

 

[Saint]

Some people don't understand that it is government policy for the population of Australia to grow.
Remember when Costello told everyone to have a baby?

Nobody ever complains that the value of their house has tripled or quadrupled in the last 20 years.
They usually attribute that to hard work. Or some such bullshit.

It's always good when your own value goes up at the expense of others, but when other people's wealth goes up at the expense of your children, it's worth complaining about.

 

[Total Power]

What a load of crap.
Have to register first. LOL

Where do Syrians go to "register" prior to disembarking Syria?

Country shopping.
Another LOL.
You've hit the far right nut job bingo. Le Pen would be proud of you parroting her nonsense.

Lol! you don't even know that you don't know. Such a long post, basically a broken record and calling people racist. Your only argument.

You are unaware of EU regulations: from the EU journal:

The purpose of the currently applicable Dublin system is to identify a single EU member state as responsible for processing an asylum application. The procedure is based on several criteria, including the first-country-of-entry criterion.

Meaning, if they reach Italy, they must identify themselves and register in Italy. FIRST SAFE COUNTRY rule.

How TF do you know they have a violent religious background?
You are once again just making shit up.
Sure , some of them will commit crimes, even violent crimes, even violent religious crimes.
Every country in the world has jails. Every country in the world has criminals, violent criminals.
It's not anything new that some people are violent criminals.

I don't. Hence the check.When i migrated to Switzerland to live there, i had to submit a police clearance certificate.Under EU rules you must have a background check before admission for a long term stay.It can be checking with the police databse in turkey or the interpol or just simple referencing.Apparently laws the same for everyone, so why are some people exempt?

The problem with your bullshit is that you want to collectively punish people for the potential actions of a few.
The evidence that you have in support of these potential future violent actions is nothing more than your imagination and hatred of Muslims.

Who do i want to punish? about half of the asylum seekers coming in are not eligible for asylum cause they come from Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Bangladesh etc.

Playing the victim card won't bail you out. Admitting people without knowing who they are and whether they are here for economic or political asylum and their background is a prerequiste of any asylum application. You are telling me this is discrimination???

That's it. That's all the evidence you have.
If we started locking up people based on someone's imagination and hatred of certain groups where would we end up?
Would you like them to lock up far right politicians because they have a potential to do bad things to a country?
No you wouldn't.

Don't vote for far right, they can do no damage then. People HAVE voted for far right in majority of the EU states, but you wanna send their leaders to jail? ah yes democracy, funny how you bitch about it when you don't get what you want. So for you for democracy to work you need a leftist govermment? So democracy sucks?

Just LOL.

Basic common sense says apply the laws equally to everybody.
Nobody gets punished based on the imagination of another person.
That's not a difficult concept to grasp.

Common sense,funny you talk about it. You were ignored for claiming 'arabs built pyramids' long time ago. This last rant proves you have literally lost it and outside of playing the racist card, neither you read anything i post nor you are willing to have a discussion without playing the man to a very practical problem. Back to block you go, you simply aren't worth it.

 

[Total Power]

This is my favourite part; illegal immigrants and refugees are affecting house prices. Because presumably they have so much money to be buying houses with as they flee and cross borders illegally.

You have no idea what i am talking about, don't you? Housing affordibility in cities like Amsterdam or Stockholm have always been a challenge, now with so many refugees and the council by law having to house them for a minimum period of 2 years have gobbled up the supplies often by jumping the queue. In cities like stockholm you sometimes have to wait 30 years to rent. Governments get a free pass at the expense of local people. They often buy or rent the whole building making it impossible for anyone else to rent or buy.

It's supply demand. Landlords have taken advantage of this and almost doubled the rental prices. People can no longer afford to stay in the city cause sustainable housing is no longer a thing.

Those are denied asylum, refuse to go back to their native country, or maybe their native countries refused to take them back, were allowed to stay at Migrationsverket accommodations (which are mostly abandoned buildings or warehouses or very old apartments). If you go to Malmo, there are ghettos full of people who been refused asylum but can't be kicked out cause they often burn their identity cards and simply refuse to cooperate. They can't find jobs cause they are illegal and are massive burden on the housing system as most of the Migrationsverket are full of refused asylum seekers. So where does the govt accomodate the successful ones and the new ones coming in when it takes 15-20 years for locals to rent on an average, and what happens the prices then???? it's economics 101.

 

[Number37]

Lol! you don't even know that you don't know. Such a long post, basically a broken record and calling people racist. Your only argument.

You are unaware of EU regulations: from the EU journal:

The purpose of the currently applicable Dublin system is to identify a single EU member state as responsible for processing an asylum application. The procedure is based on several criteria, including the first-country-of-entry criterion.

Meaning, if they reach Italy, they must identify themselves and register in Italy. FIRST SAFE COUNTRY rule.

You don't even know what you are quoting.
First country of entry is 3rd in the heirarchy.

The rules relate to how the EU processes asylum seekers, not what asylum seekers are allowed to do.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

A complex, ruthless and multinational migrant-smuggling network has developed around Europe’s unprecedented migration crisis, thus generating billions of euros for the criminal groups involved.
In 2014, the number of irregular migrants arriving in the EU surged, reaching more than one million migrants the following year. Europol believes this trend of rapidly increasing numbers is set to continue.
The facilitation of illegal immigration is one of the EU’s priorities in the fight against serious and organised crime as part of EMPACT 2022 - 2025.
This development has had a profound impact on Europe’s criminal landscape, with criminal networks substantially increasing their involvement in migrant smuggling. More than 90 % of the migrants travelling to the EU used facilitation services. In most cases, these services were offered and provided by criminal groups.

 

[evolved2]

Some posting guidelines from the mods would be helpful here as to what is considered acceptable and what isn't. Is it racist to discuss the negative aspects of Islam, birth rates of different people groups, etc. This can be relevant to discuss growth of different religions.

How hard hitting can we be when it's purely fact based? Are some facts too offensive for the srp?

Id like some clarity to determine how I post on this thread and whether it's even worth posting in.

Thanks

 

[smish]

Some posting guidelines from the mods would be helpful here as to what is considered acceptable and what isn't. Is it racist to discuss the negative aspects of Islam, birth rates of different people groups, etc. This can be relevant to discuss growth of different religions.

How hard hitting can we be when it's purely fact based? Are some facts too offensive for the srp?

Id like some clarity to determine how I post on this thread and whether it's even worth posting in.

Thanks

Racist post mate

 

[burge13]

Some posting guidelines from the mods would be helpful here as to what is considered acceptable and what isn't. Is it racist to discuss the negative aspects of Islam, birth rates of different people groups, etc. This can be relevant to discuss growth of different religions.

How hard hitting can we be when it's purely fact based? Are some facts too offensive for the srp?

Id like some clarity to determine how I post on this thread and whether it's even worth posting in.

Thanks

As a guide

When you think you're being 'progressive' enough, you're not. Throw common sense and normal values out the window, they serve no purpose here.

Why throw out common sense you ask? Well you'd think womens rights would be in the progressives wheelhouse for example, and it is. But only when a different minority isn't infringing on them. Islams record with women's rights should be protected according to them?

I think rather than guidelines we need a definitive power rankings list of which minority is most 'progressive' to support.

 

[CM86]

I’ll try to explain my viewpoint, in the hope someone can help me bridge the gap.

I have a baseline position that the majority of ‘white’ people from the ‘Western’’ world generally views:

a. ‘Western Society’ as multicultural, inclusive and progressive. But also as a ‘white’, Christian society.​

b. Christianity as predominantly ‘white’.​

c. Muslims as non-white, ‘Asian’, Middle Eastern, North African, Indonesian etc.​

A red flag to me is when someone will just claim that those three things aren’t true.


What I view as Islamophobia is when people use religion to discuss a specific group of people, as people. And how those people impact ‘Western’|white|society’
Rather than discussing the religion itself and the harm/dangers of the ideology. The political impacts they can and do have.
Religion is an ideology, and impacts other ideologies.
Religion is a choice.
------------------------------------


An example of the ‘religion not race’ arguments I find difficult to understand is the position on ‘birth rates’ in a discussion around religion/ideology, and how some people genuinely think it’s just about religion and has no connection to ‘race’.

Whenever people discuss the increasing number of Muslims in Western countries, it’s always related in some way to refugees, immigration or birth rates.
People from non-Islamic families can adopt Islam, or marry into Islam. But these numbers are never considered when looking at the ‘increasing number of Muslims’. They are either entirely ignored, or dismissed as insignificant.
If it’s about the ideology shouldn’t that be a much more important area of discussion?
How is this ideology drawing in people from outside of its influence? But this is ‘insignificant’.


So we look at ‘birth rates’ as a problem.
You’re not born religious.

It goes without saying that someone born into a religious household is much more likely to be raised with that religion and adopt that religion. But it’s treated as a 100% outcome.

- You’re not born religious.​

- Religion/ideology are not genetic traits or characteristics.​

- But it’s not a fact of ‘3 more children equals 3 more Muslims’.​

- Australian Muslims have more in common with Australian Christians, than they do with Hamas.​

You ARE born with physical traits and characteristics of your parents.
So when you’re discussing birth rates of Muslims, you are talking about hereditary characteristics of that ‘race’ of people.
And those traits and characteristics are how we view and identify people, regardless of their religion.


Religion can never ‘out-breed’ people. It’s an ideology.
But ‘White’ can be outbred, because ‘white’ skin is a recessive phenotype and ‘dark’ skin is a dominant phenotype.
There's many racist conspiracies around the loss of 'white' people, due to immigration, refugees and birth rates.
Miscegenation. White genocide conspiracy theory.


So:

- If you’re making the same arguments about a group of people, that are also argued by racists.​

- If you’re arguing about the same outcomes from a group of people, that are also argued by racists.​

- If you’re not just discussing the ideology and its political influence.​

- If racists have been twisting genuine concerns about Islam to generate fear and hate.​

1. Is it understandable if people might mistake your position as racist?

2. Is it not up to you, to try and distinguish yourself from Islamophobic racism?
3. Are you able to explain how arguments around birth rates have no connection to race, only religion?

 

[evolved2]

I’ll try to explain my viewpoint, in the hope someone can help me bridge the gap.

Happy to engage in a respectful manner with you.

I have a baseline position that the majority of ‘white’ people from the ‘Western’’ world generally views:

I don't take my views from the majority. I'll point out my position.

a. ‘Western Society’ as multicultural, inclusive and progressive. But also as a ‘white’, Christian society.​

I view the Western world as an example of secular society (to varying degrees), though I may be in the minority. I simply don't know without seeing results of a survey.

b. Christianity as predominantly ‘white’.​

That may be a general view, but it's not mine. Christianity also thrives in parts of Africa and Asia, and there are large non-white church groups across Australia. I'm not attacking white people when I attack Christianity.

c. Muslims as non-white, ‘Asian’, Middle Eastern, North African, Indonesian etc.​

I'd say that's predominantly true, and would be backed by statistics.

A red flag to me is when someone will just claim that those three things aren’t true.

I may be giving off red flags then.

What I view as Islamophobia is when people use religion to discuss a specific group of people, as people. And how those people impact ‘Western’|white|society’

Secular society.

Go read some of the posts from Total Power and myself on the Christian threads. We post the same stuff about Christianity and nobody calls us racist for doing so.

Islamophobia is precisely that - fear of Islam. I also have a fear of Christianity, and for good reason. If you want to infer racism, that's up to you. The SRP tends to show its bias and ignorance when discussing racism.

My brown immigrant wife doesn't think I'm racist. White progressives on the SRP do. I can tell you who's opinion I value more.

Rather than discussing the religion itself and the harm/dangers of the ideology. The political impacts they can and do have.
Religion is an ideology, and impacts other ideologies.
Religion is a choice.
------------------------------------


An example of the ‘religion not race’ arguments I find difficult to understand is the position on ‘birth rates’ in a discussion around religion/ideology, and how some people genuinely think it’s just about religion and has no connection to ‘race’.

Religion (any, not just Islam) is spread primarily from parent to child. I do not care whether Arabs or Asians or white people are breeding more - I care about religion pushing itself into politics, and a religion having more adherents enables that religion more political power.

The two religions that spread like weeds and infect politics wherever they flourish are Islam and Christianity. With larger numbers of adherents, Christians and Muslims are able to infect politics in Australia. We see that happening already with right wing Christians, and it's ignorant to assume the same wont happen with Islam.

I see no racism in that view. Do you?

Whenever people discuss the increasing number of Muslims in Western countries, it’s always related in some way to refugees, immigration or birth rates.
People from non-Islamic families can adopt Islam, or marry into Islam. But these numbers are never considered when looking at the ‘increasing number of Muslims’. They are either entirely ignored, or dismissed as insignificant.
If it’s about the ideology shouldn’t that be a much more important area of discussion?
How is this ideology drawing in people from outside of its influence? But this is ‘insignificant’.

Yes, non-Muslims will convert to Islam and many have already. I don't care what color the Muslim is. I don't even care that they believe nonsense. All I care about is religion infecting politics, oppressing people, and opposing science - both here and elsewhere in the world.

Ask yourself this - why do you always discuss Islam and Christianity in terms of brown and white people? I feel its your bias that's being projected onto others. It's quite easy to differentiate religion from race.

So we look at ‘birth rates’ as a problem.
You’re not born religious.

We're all born atheists. It's the natural state before indoctrination.

It goes without saying that someone born into a religious household is much more likely to be raised with that religion and adopt that religion. But it’s treated as a 100% outcome.

No it's not treated as a 100% outcome. That's a strawman.

- You’re not born religious.​

Agreed

- Religion/ideology are not genetic traits or characteristics.​

Agreed

- But it’s not a fact of ‘3 more children equals 3 more Muslims’.​

Agreed

- Australian Muslims have more in common with Australian Christians, than they do with Hamas.​

Religion is transferred primarily from parent to child before the child learns to think for themselves. Scientific projections for growth of religion are largely based on on birth rates. That's not me being racist, that's a fact.

Nobody said most Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers - there's quite a few strawman arguments in your post.

You ARE born with physical traits and characteristics of your parents.
So when you’re discussing birth rates of Muslims, you are talking about hereditary characteristics of that ‘race’ of people.
And those traits and characteristics are how we view and identify people, regardless of their religion.

Again, I don't care about the skin color. I care about the ideology. I'd gladly accept every atheist and homosexual Arab/African who's being persecuted by Islam in as refugees here. And yes, I know some homosexuals are Muslims.

Religion can never ‘out-breed’ people. It’s an ideology.
But ‘White’ can be outbred, because ‘white’ skin is a recessive phenotype and ‘dark’ skin is a dominant phenotype.
There's many racist conspiracies around the loss of 'white' people, due to immigration, refugees and birth rates.
Miscegenation. White genocide conspiracy theory.


So:

- If you’re making the same arguments about a group of people, that are also argued by racists.​

- If you’re arguing about the same outcomes from a group of people, that are also argued by racists.​

- If you’re not just discussing the ideology and its political influence.​

- If racists have been twisting genuine concerns about Islam to generate fear and hate.​

1. Is it understandable if people might mistake your position as racist?

Not really.

I argue the same things about Christianity and very few lefties care. I can't say I agree with Number37 on much, but I respect that he takes the same stance in the Christian thread as he does here. When have you ventured over to the Christian threads to defend them from Total Power or my attacks against Christianity? Obviously we hate Christianity because Christians are white, yes? Or do you only see a racial element when it suits your political ideology?

2. Is it not up to you, to try and distinguish yourself from Islamophobic racism?

Not really. I don't care if some can't distinguish racism from antitheism on a discussion board.

3. Are you able to explain how arguments around birth rates have no connection to race, only religion?

Do some reading. There's scientific study on it.

I hope I don't cop a ban for posting a racist scientific link, but here we go:

Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group

The main reasons for Islam’s growth ultimately involve simple demographics.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Total Power]

Some posting guidelines from the mods would be helpful here as to what is considered acceptable and what isn't. Is it racist to discuss the negative aspects of Islam, birth rates of different people groups, etc. This can be relevant to discuss growth of different religions.

How hard hitting can we be when it's purely fact based? Are some facts too offensive for the srp?

Id like some clarity to determine how I post on this thread and whether it's even worth posting in.

Thanks

In 2022 when Swedish PM (who is a leftist himself) took the stage and said our efforts to integrate people have failed and parallel societies are destroying this country and Sweden is turning right, no one took notice. A few months later, they got their first right wing government since WW2. People are getting sick of plenty of things and their concerns have not been addressed. House prices are just the tip of the iceberg, the whole 'turning right' issue is not a coincidence.

Burning is book is apparently such a big crime that you have to go kill, riot, rob, murder and decimate everything in sight. Then burn the country's flag in their own country and other countries as well!!!!! how are they living in Sweden? Burning Swedish flag is ok but burning quran isn't.

The burden of cultural alignment and integration is always on the immigrant, not the host country. This basic premise being lost on the left has created an ocean of problems. Most people in this thread should come live in Europe for a few years and tell rethink what they have said and decide what's racist and what isn't.

 

[CM86]

I have a baseline position that the majority of ‘white’ people from the ‘Western’’ world generally views:

a. ‘Western Society’ as multicultural, inclusive and progressive. But also as a ‘white’, Christian society.​

b. Christianity as predominantly ‘white’.​

c. Muslims as non-white, ‘Asian’, Middle Eastern, North African, Indonesian etc.​

A red flag to me is when someone will just claim that those three things aren’t true.

I'm not talking about individuals, the same way we aren't discussing any individual Muslim.

I was careful with my wording with 'majority' and 'generally', to avoid having to explain that I'm not talking about everyone, or any individual poster in this thread.

Do some reading. There's scientific study on it.

I hope I don't cop a ban for posting a racist scientific link, but here we go:

Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group

The main reasons for Islam’s growth ultimately involve simple demographics.

www.pewresearch.org

This is talking about global population religious growth. And by demographics.
Unfortunately it's been referred to for almost a decade by actual racists. Who twist its meaning. And rely on a general lack of public understanding and research.

The link isn't racist.
How the information is used can imply a racist motive.

Impoverished people on average will have more children than non-impoverished people.
Income and fertility
Impoverished people tend to be more influenced into religions and devout in their religion.
Socioeconomic stats and belief -- Religious influence on low-income.
Many of the poorest nations are Muslim majority.
Religiosity Highest in World's Poorest Nations.


If you're going to discuss the fertility rate of Muslim and non-Muslim of a specific location, you should refer to the actual fertility rates of that location.
So using the global fertility rate and specifically applying it to Australia, Europe or the US etc is misleading.

It's done deliberately by racists. It's also pushed onto people who have been scared by the spread of this kind of misinformation.


The link you provided is careful to deliberately point out the difference in Muslim fertility rates based on location.
And it's this important information from your very link, that is so often hidden when pushing fear.
Unfortunately it's also missing very important SES context.




If the study had referenced previous studies to include the variation in fertility rates based on location, with the SES, migration and global impacts of the push factors, it would have made it much harder to point at the European 1.6 - 2.1 as such a danger.



The implication is that impoverishment is genetic. Therefore the lower outcomes will continue regardless of SES or location. Because these non-white people being genetically inferior.
That if 'they' come over 'here' they will bring their impoverishment and poor outcomes with them for generation after generation. Because it's their 'race'.

I am not saying you're racist.
I am not talking about you as an individual.
I am presenting my general opinion on Islamophobia and Islamophobic rhetoric, based on my research and experience.

 

[CM86]

Go read some of the posts from Total Power and myself on the Christian threads. We post the same stuff about Christianity and nobody calls us racist for doing so.

1. What's something you or anyone has made the exact same statement about Christianity and Islam, that you've been called racist for doing so?

Islamophobia is precisely that - fear of Islam. I also have a fear of Christianity, and for good reason. If you want to infer racism, that's up to you. The SRP tends to show its bias and ignorance when discussing racism.

It's the irrational fear.
That's what phobias are.
Everyone should instinctively have a fear of venomous snakes. Ophidiophobia is the extreme and irrationally overwhelming fear of snakes.

I spent time to explain what I view Islamophobia is in the post you replied to.
So saying that I want to infer that you're racist because of your rational fear of Islam, is an actual strawman.

My brown immigrant wife doesn't think I'm racist. White progressives on the SRP do. I can tell you who's opinion I value more.

This doesn't mean anything in terms of what I am discussing.
Besides, it isn't evidence of you or the views you share on here.

I'm not making this claim of you at all, I'm only saying this to explain why it isn't a good argument.
It is not unusual for racists, sexists, homophobes etc to have relationships with other races, sexes and sexualities.
I do not think you are a racist, sexist or homophobe.

Religion (any, not just Islam) is spread primarily from parent to child. I do not care whether Arabs or Asians or white people are breeding more - I care about religion pushing itself into politics, and a religion having more adherents enables that religion more political power.

Then that's what you should discuss.
We have tolerated Christian and Catholic influence in politics for generations.
I agree with blocking an Islam specific party from forming Government, but I'm not going to accept only Islam being blocked, while other religions aren't (in name or not).

What generally annoys me around this subject almost as much as the dishonesty and Islamophobia, is how it distracts from the very important discussions around ideologies influencing politics and how it impacts our society.

The two religions that spread like weeds and infect politics wherever they flourish are Islam and Christianity. With larger numbers of adherents, Christians and Muslims are able to infect politics in Australia. We see that happening already with right wing Christians, and it's ignorant to assume the same wont happen with Islam.

I see no racism in that view. Do you?

No I don't see racism in that view.
You're discussing the ideology and it's impacts.
You're not discussing the people.

Yes, non-Muslims will convert to Islam and many have already. I don't care what color the Muslim is. I don't even care that they believe nonsense. All I care about is religion infecting politics, oppressing people, and opposing science - both here and elsewhere in the world.

Then you should be frustrated with both 'sides' that keep making it about 'race' and the people.
And you should be frustrated at the dishonest people who hide behind your rational stance, and push Islamophobia.

Ask yourself this - why do you always discuss Islam and Christianity in terms of brown and white people? I feel its your bias that's being projected onto others. It's quite easy to differentiate religion from race.

I explained this in detail to you previously, and you ignored it as a 'vibe'.
I also explained it in the post you replied to.

These are my a,b and c points that you partially dismissed because they were not reflective of you specifically.

We're all born atheists. It's the natural state before indoctrination.

Semantics, but agnostic.

Religion is transferred primarily from parent to child before the child learns to think for themselves. Scientific projections for growth of religion are largely based on on birth rates. That's not me being racist, that's a fact.

Yes. Religious population predictions are based on the fertility rates of the religious people.
100%
It isn't taking into account developing nations and the general trend for a decrease in religion in highly developed and developing countries. Or the level of devoutness.

Like any implication that the rate of Muslim growth in Sub-Saharan Africa will be equal or similar to Adelaide.


2. As you point out, what happens when the child 'learns to think for themselves'?
Especially in a secular society?

Nobody said most Muslims are terrorists or terrorist sympathisers - there's quite a few strawman arguments in your post.

I didn't say that.
I could have said Iraq, Egypt etc. But I said Hamas as it's been a topic in the previous thread.
"Who do you think the average Muslim in Australia has more in common with. The average Australian, or hamas?

I argue the same things about Christianity and very few lefties care. I can't say I agree with Number37 on much, but I respect that he takes the same stance in the Christian thread as he does here. When have you ventured over to the Christian threads to defend them from Total Power or my attacks against Christianity? Obviously we hate Christianity because Christians are white, yes? Or do you only see a racial element when it suits your political ideology?

As I've tried very hard to explain the racial element from my view in regards to certain discussion around Muslims, including examples.
And I've been clear to point out that I'm against Islam and religion.
I have to wonder why you persist with the position that I am claiming it's racist to be against an ideology.

 

[CM86]

In 2022 when Swedish PM (who is a leftist himself) took the stage and said our efforts to integrate people have failed and parallel societies are destroying this country and Sweden is turning right, no one took notice. A few months later, they got their first right wing government since WW2. People are getting sick of plenty of things and their concerns have not been addressed. House prices are just the tip of the iceberg, the whole 'turning right' issue is not a coincidence.

Burning is book is apparently such a big crime that you have to go kill, riot, rob, murder and decimate everything in sight. Then burn the country's flag in their own country and other countries as well!!!!! how are they living in Sweden? Burning Swedish flag is ok but burning quran isn't.

The burden of cultural alignment and integration is always on the immigrant, not the host country. This basic premise being lost on the left has created an ocean of problems. Most people in this thread should come live in Europe for a few years and tell rethink what they have said and decide what's racist and what isn't.

I believe you live and travel in a lot of the areas and have done for a long time now?
In fact I think Islam might have been the topic we used to argue over originally?

So you'd have a much better perspective of changes and impacts at a ground level.

How much do you believe Islam is the cause of some of the major problems in these areas?
How much do you believe the increasing number of impoverished migrants are the cause of some of the major problems in these areas?


I appreciate your honest positions on this, even if I feel strongly against some of what I've seen you post. But you don't need to answer.

 

[Total Power]

I believe you live and travel in a lot of the areas and have done for a long time now?

So you'd have a much better perspective of changes and impacts at a ground level.

How much do you believe Islam is the cause of some of the major problems in these areas?
How much do you believe the increasing number of impoverished migrants are the cause of some of the major problems in these areas?


I appreciate your honest positions on this, even if I feel strongly against some of what I've seen you post. But you don't need to answer.

I don't wish to get called a RWNJ again or get a thread ban again mate. I am merely stating my experience (i don't read tabloids or watch youtube), but i might get into trouble for saying something no one wants to hear. Can i PM?

 

[evolved2]

1. What's something you or anyone has made the exact same statement about Christianity and Islam, that you've been called racist for doing so?



It's the irrational fear.
That's what phobias are.
Everyone should instinctively have a fear of venomous snakes. Ophidiophobia is the extreme and irrationally overwhelming fear of snakes.

I spent time to explain what I view Islamophobia is in the post you replied to.
So saying that I want to infer that you're racist because of your rational fear of Islam, is an actual strawman.


This doesn't mean anything in terms of what I am discussing.
Besides, it isn't evidence of you or the views you share on here.

I'm not making this claim of you at all, I'm only saying this to explain why it isn't a good argument.
It is not unusual for racists, sexists, homophobes etc to have relationships with other races, sexes and sexualities.
I do not think you are a racist, sexist or homophobe.




Then that's what you should discuss.
We have tolerated Christian and Catholic influence in politics for generations.
I agree with blocking an Islam specific party from forming Government, but I'm not going to accept only Islam being blocked, while other religions aren't (in name or not).

What generally annoys me around this subject almost as much as the dishonesty and Islamophobia, is how it distracts from the very important discussions around ideologies influencing politics and how it impacts our society.



No I don't see racism in that view.
You're discussing the ideology and it's impacts.
You're not discussing the people.




Then you should be frustrated with both 'sides' that keep making it about 'race' and the people.
And you should be frustrated at the dishonest people who hide behind your rational stance, and push Islamophobia.



I explained this in detail to you previously, and you ignored it as a 'vibe'.
I also explained it in the post you replied to.

These are my a,b and c points that you partially dismissed because they were not reflective of you specifically.




Semantics, but agnostic.



Yes. Religious population predictions are based on the fertility rates of the religious people.
100%
It isn't taking into account developing nations and the general trend for a decrease in religion in highly developed and developing countries. Or the level of devoutness.

Like any implication that the rate of Muslim growth in Sub-Saharan Africa will be equal or similar to Adelaide.


2. As you point out, what happens when the child 'learns to think for themselves'?
Especially in a secular society?



I didn't say that.
I could have said Iraq, Egypt etc. But I said Hamas as it's been a topic in the previous thread.
"Who do you think the average Muslim in Australia has more in common with. The average Australian, or hamas?



As I've tried very hard to explain the racial element from my view in regards to certain discussion around Muslims, including examples.
And I've been clear to point out that I'm against Islam and religion.
I have to wonder why you persist with the position that I am claiming it's racist to be against an ideology.

Apologies if I mistook your position. I think it's better for me to wait for clarification from the mods before continuing this line of discussion.

I've already been called racist by a mod in this thread for something I don't consider racist. The SRP isn't conducive to open discussion on several sensitive topics.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Taking europeans out of the equation.

Deaths Linked to Militant Islamist Violence in Africa Continue to Spiral – Africa Center for Strategic Studies

As mortes ligadas à violência militante islâmica aumentaram 20% em 2023, causando mais de 23.000 vítimas mortais — um novo recorde. Mais de 80% destas mortes registaram-se no Sahel e na Somália.

africacenter.org

 

[carltonchelsea]

When did burning books become about free speech?

You’re kidding right?
If I burned a Jack Kerouac or a Charles Bukowski book of poetry would that be my right, free speech?
Why are the Quran, Bible, Torah, The Vedas etc. special?
They are just books with words in them, I’d be more offended if Kerouac and Bukowski were burned, they are inherently more important to me than any cult book!

 

[SaintsSeptember]

You’re kidding right?
If I burned a Jack Kerouac or a Charles Bukowski book of poetry would that be my right, free speech?
Why are the Quran, Bible, Torah, The Vedas etc. special?
They are just books with words in them, I’d be more offended if Kerouac and Bukowski were burned, they are inherently more important to me than any cult book!

At a point in time they burnt more Beatles records than Bibles, Qurans or anything else, possibly proving John Lennon correct.

 

[carltonchelsea]

At a point in time they burnt more Beatles records than Bibles, Qurans or anything else, possibly proving John Lennon correct.

Islam cannot be discussed in this thread, nor can the Quran, nor can Muhammad and his actions, I’d assume some of the Hadith could be mentioned, perhaps how many strokes of a woman’s hair from a comb that is advised by the prophet could, riveting!
I understand why this is the case, it’s dangerous to do so, Muslims feel a special grievance and privilege about their book and prophet.