Hard News: Crossing the line into idle bigotry
145 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Angus, the point (and even as I type that phrase, the sense of wasting my time is crushing) is that you're making blanket statements about the Muslim world, or the Arab world (terms you seem to think are interchangeable, because I'm not sure where you drifted from one to the other) without acknowledging the immense diversity of opinions and cultures and people (many of whom are actually women) you're eliding. It'd be sad to watch if it wasn't so vile.
-
With the dehumanising implication that they're allowing themselves to be fucked over.
That is not dehumanising, we all do that.
NZ supports an American occupation that drops hellfire missile after hellfire missile on the tribal areas. We do so because America is big and powerful and we want its favour. We do not do it because it is the right thing to do.
We make the Dalai Lama wait outside, because we let our values get fucked over.
We've sent live sheep to suffer slowly, in an elongated killing process, because it makes us more money.
They are just like us, not better, not worse. Just like us.
-
Angus Robertson, in reply to
No, Emma I am being very specific about one small, extremely select part of the Muslim world that is trying to change the Islamic religion to its own purposes. They are trying to change the religion, they have done it in their country to their own great perosnal benefit and now it is up and exporting.
I have taken pains to specifically acknowledge the wide diversity of the Muslim world and rather than take a general attitude of "extremists just happen" tried to find out why. And you know what - my conclusion is that it is all about the money, which (depressingly) means they are so just like us.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I have taken pains to specifically acknowledge the wide diversity of the Muslim world
And without visiting the Swat Valley to investigate! Top work. Now explain to me again why the editor of the Waikato Times wouldn't know this.
-
DexterX, in reply to
The good news from all this is that I believe, the actions of the extremists will tail off in about 2070 (when the oil runs out).
The problem with fundamentalists be it in relation to religious belief, monetary policy or economics is that in seeking a return to the basic “ideal’ the drive is often hijacked by self serving interests that ignore the present reality and a radical version is created; a radicalisation of the ideal is created that distorts the ideal to the degree that it no longer entirely represent the fundamental ideals.
The influence of radicalism can reverberate for decades – you can see it in NZ in the manner successive governments have managed the economy since the Lange/Douglas government with a marriage to the “free market” – which isn’t really a free market but a manipulated economy for the advantage of a minority interest. An example would be the lack of intervention and hands off approach this govt has to the economy and the damage this does.
In a similar manner “Radical Isalm” and it exponents of extremism in their support for acts of violence and terror presently reverberate an influence around the globe. A major part of why we are engaged in this discussion is the pursuit of a political ideal expressed in the shooting of a school girl.
The expansion and pursuit of political agenda’s by radical Islam give me the shits – the moves to Sharia Law (Sharia courts being recognised in the UK) and retract the freedom of women. The expansion needs to be paid for to that end, the end of influence of the Petroleum Fuelled Fundamentalism would be a good thing – I hope it doesn’t take 50 years.
-
Sacha, in reply to
the lack of intervention and hands off approach this govt has to the economy
Other than for example intervening to change tax rates to favour the wealthy; to direct payouts be made to investors in South Canterbury Finance beyond those covered by the guarantee scheme; to dismantle ECan when it threatened to not approve corporate farming's desire for increased irrigation.
Can we please put this 'do nothing' nonsense to bed now. It didn't persuade people at the last election, and it won't at the next.
The influence of radicalism can reverberate for decades – you can see it in NZ in the manner successive governments have managed the economy since the Lange/Douglas government with a marriage to the “free market”
However I generally agree with you on this.
-
Angus Robertson, in reply to
The contention was that Muslims by their very nature are dangerous and will destroy our societies from within if they are allowed to breed.
Do you believe the latter is true?
Islam is a religion so it can be changed. The salafists are trying to change Islam and they have lots of money right now. However the task is immense and salafism is such a very difficult way to live. The costs of changing Islam and maintaining some semblence of functional society under that change will be too costly, can't be done for all the oil in Arabia.
So my answer is: No. It is a BS line taken by zealots of all types (christian/atheist/hindi/salafist/zoinist varieties included). Islam as is poses no greater threat that Catholicism.
They will not destroy our societies, but they'll be damage. A vanishingly small amount of damage will occur in the wealthy countries - which we will howl & moan about endlessly, we'll invade & occupy a few more failed states before this is over. A much greater degree of damage will occur in poor Muslim countries - which we'll mostly be able to safely ignore and anyway will officially catergorise as regional specific.
It will go on until:
- Salafism collapses under its own weight - possible.
- The princes undertake reform - unlikely, tigers & tails & all that.
- The oil runs out - 2070 or later.
- The Chinese invent Mr Fusion - ?
- America stops protecting the princes - 2070 or later. -
Angus Robertson, in reply to
Now explain to me again why the editor of the Waikato Times wouldn't know this.
Because it probably doesn't come up much in general conversation. Because when Islamic countries make the news it is mostly for arresting couples for kissing, commuting the death sentences of women convicted of witchcraft, stopping women from driving, blasphemy laws, Palestine and terrorism.
When the right wing fuddy duddy, with whom the editor probably shares little political common ground, comes up with a crackpot theory* as to why in an opinion piece - the editor can disgree on tone at most. But it is topical and of interest to the weird types who follow this guy.
* His crackpot theory is more popular than my crackpot theory. His is more appealing to zealots. My crackpot theory is more depressingly realistic and no one really wants to be depressed.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Now explain to me again why the editor of the Waikato Times wouldn’t know this.
Because it probably doesn’t come up much in general conversation.
Actually, I give up.
-
Sacha, in reply to
A rational response, sir.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
We've sent live sheep to suffer slowly, in an elongated killing process
I think it's important to differentiate here between Sunni Muslims, who stone the sheep to death with balls of hardened cheese, and Shia Muslims, who ignite the beasts after applying a gasoline enema. Some consider the latter to be more humane.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Actually, I give up.
I think going for a ride is probably worthwhile at this point.
-
DexterX, in reply to
Can we please put this 'do nothing' nonsense to bed now. It didn't persuade people at the last election, and it won't at the next.
You're correct - my criticism of the current lot is more that in relation to available options they did not do much good and much of what they did was badly executed.
-
Sacha, in reply to
quite a different statement, you'll agree.
-
Angus, the point (and even as I type that phrase, the sense of wasting my time is crushing)
I'm always impressed by someone who can see this in themselves on the fly. I can sit here and see it in others, but the other week I found myself 10 posts (and a moderate amount of internet research) into a stupid argument on facebook about whether the new Dunedin stadium affected the way rugby balls flew in the air, before I was able to step back and say "what are you doing with your life?"
-
Scott Chris, in reply to
Mainstream Christian churches around the world have no trouble whatsoever in “disputing” fundamentalist readings of scripture.
Yes, because we are blessed in the West with a prevailingly liberal culture which tolerates dissenting views - such as those expressed by neo-crusaderist-civilizationists. ;)
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
Yes, because we are blessed in the West with a prevailingly liberal culture which tolerates dissenting views – such as those expressed by neo-crusaderist-civilizationists. ;)
Scott makes a good point in response to those of you who were wanting Michael Cox to be dealt with by the Ministry of Truth.
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Yes, because we are blessed in the West with a prevailingly liberal culture which tolerates dissenting views - such as those expressed by neo-crusaderist-civilizationists. ;)
Is there a better way of counteracting hate speech than this? And it's from a Christian group, too.
-
UPDATE: A mea culpa from Michael Cox. (HT Anjum Rahman)
-
Post your response…
This topic is closed.