Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

[McHrozni]

It makes me sad that such a large portion of this thread has come to be about criticism against the support and solidarity shown towards Muslims after a terror attack by a white supremacist against Muslims.

I would have thought people here were better than that.

We're at page 41 you know. No one disagrees with the criticism of the terrorist and no one claims solidarity with the victims in unwarranted. If you want to have a discussion it must be about something where different opinions are exchanged.

Simply remaining in an echo chamber is a tad silly and utterly pointless.

McHrozni

 

[uke2se]

We're at page 41 you know. No one disagrees with the criticism of the terrorist and no one claims solidarity with the victims in unwarranted. If you want to have a discussion it must be about something where different opinions are exchanged.

Simply remaining in an echo chamber is a tad silly and utterly pointless.

McHrozni

Make a new thread titled "Why I don't agree with the modes and methods of solidarity shown towards terror victims" and I'm sure you can have all the discussion you want without turning a thread about Muslim victims of terror to another thread where you bash Islam.

 

[uke2se]

It’s too soon to discuss rationally on an online debate forum? Just send thoughts and prayers?

We can discuss how to work to prevent the terror attack from happening again. That involves a lot of criticism against Western culture and right wing culture especially. Ok?

 

[Stout]

It's worth exploring what idea?! That nobody at all in this thread has suggested a ban on criticizing any religion? That's really not open for debate. All you need to do is realize that it's a fact.




Why do you think that criticizing Islam is bigoted? Or that criticizing Christianity is? I don't see you guys actually criticizing Islam as a religion. For some reason you all seem to have grown quite fond of Christianity in recent years. Otherwise you wouldn't always use it in comparison to Islam to prove that the latter is not simply a religion, but a (or the) bad religion. No wonder you think that "criticizing Christianity is "old hat"". Old and forgotten. Nowadays, the old atheists resort to criticizing the Muslim infidels - not because they believe in a religion but because they've chosen the wrong religion, the one that suddenly seems to have achieved a monopoly on repressing women according to you guys.

All I see you do is 1) pretend that the rest of us want to ban your right to criticize religion and 2) pretend that we do what you pretend that we do in order "to not be seen as a "racist"". (As if you all didn't already sound like copies of Baylor ...)

Why are you so obsessed with what other people allegedly want to be seen as? Is it because you're afraid of not being seen as racists? Or is it because the anti-Muslim terrorist attack in New Zealand has made it so obvious what all your talk of "western progressive values" is actually about? (Apparently, Breivik didn't make that clear enough for you.)

By the way, the idea of wearing something that represents a persecuted group of people in order to show your solidarity with them isn't new at all. Not even when the symbol has religious connotations:

Hummm, you could be right, absolutely nobody anywhere posed the idea that criticizing Islam be prohibited on the grounds that it could be considered racist. Where in the hell did that idea come from anyway ?

As to why Christianity was brought up ? I have no idea but it was probably mentioned by an alt-righter and we need to maintain New Zealand style hyper-vigilance to make sure that never ever happens again.

I mean, if someone seeing a tattoo at a Wellington music festival can get the venue temporarily evacuated, just think of the good work we can do here.

 

[Stout]

Maybe chose another time for that?

I mean, for decency's sake if nothing else?

Yes, you may have a point. Since this is obviously your post on this thread ho long do you suggest "decent" people wait before discussing the incident and some of the issues associated with it ?

 

[Steve]

This is very true.

I do wear a headscarf at times (I know hypocritical given my post above). I would always wear it if going to the Mosque with my parents. (As an atheist, I would never go myself.) There has always been racist comments but recently some comments are more pointed to what you wear than they used to be.

Men feel justified in commenting on women appearance. Big boobs, no boobs, hairy arm pits, head scarves, hairstyle, short skirts.

I appreciate the political symbolism and solidarity, but I chose not to wear a headscarf, because I don't want to be defined by an article of clothing.

You should hear my wife and my daughter commenting on men. Goes both ways.

 

[Max_mang]

So what?

That is Iran, it has nothing to do with this country, but if you want to go that way

There's more to the world than your tiny bubble.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...enalty-against-a-female-human-rights-activist

I would advise y'all to read past the headline... FOUR of those facing execution are men!

So two wrongs make a right in your view - got it.

 

[Max_mang]

It makes me sad that such a large portion of this thread has come to be about criticism against the support and solidarity shown towards Muslims after a terror attack by a white supremacist against Muslims.

I would have thought people here were better than that.

Facts are inconvenient sometimes.

 

[Max_mang]

Maybe chose another time for that?

I mean, for decency's sake if nothing else?

If we were at a vigil for the victims I would agree with you, but this is a niche, obscure internet message board supposedly dedicated to critical thinking.

 

[Max_mang]

The Vatican still insists on covered shoulders and knees, unless you are a female world leader visiting the Pope then you have to wear black and cover your head. Those damn Muslims in the Vatican!

The logical fallacies in this thread are quite astounding.

 

[Steve]

That is just a complete and intentional misrepresentation what PW said, and you know it.

I know no such thing. Perhaps you could clarify.

What the hell is this obsession you have trying to dictate how other cultures function? Just because they do things differently from how YOUR culture does things, or how YOU think they should be doing things, does not mean they are wrong and you are right.

No obsession, just interest and following a discussion. Could you explain how you think "my culture" operates.

In school assembly, kids are often made to girls on one side of the centre aisle, boys on the other side - OMG!!!!!! SEGREGATION!!!!!!!!!!!! They also have to sit seniors at the front and juniors at the back. OMG!!!!! AGE DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!!!!!

This one amuses me. Similar things were done here back in the 60's when i was in school. We seem to have moved on. My daughter is 3 months away from completing her 13th and final year in the public school system. I have never seen an assembly segregated as you describe.

Did it ever occur to you that perhaps many of the women in Islam choose to do what they do? Even in our culture, some women choose to stay at home and be home-makers and child raisers; are they oppressed or second class citizens because they choose to do this? Others choose to have careers - THESE ARE THEIR RIGHTS!

No doubt most Islamic women choose to follow their religious customs. They have been raised in these customs since birth.

Like Phantom Wolf, I personally know a number of Muslim families. The women are not at all how you seem to imagine them to be. They are not oppressed or downtrodden. Without exception, all the ones I have met are proud of the life they lead.

A few muslim families in NZ are hardly a typical example of world Islam.

 

[Stout]

We can discuss how to work to prevent the terror attack from happening again. That involves a lot of criticism against Western culture and right wing culture especially. Ok?

Well...I went and had a nice long morning constitutional and came up with a few ideas.

We've already got the video and the manifesto banned however you can buy and exemption ( for $102 ) to view the manifesto if the government deems you trustworthy enough, so if some bans ar good then more bans must be better, right?

We could start a list of sites that need to be banned/blocked. I hear that Breitbart thing is a festering swamp, so there's my contribution. Block that sucker and block it hard.

I'd be giving the side eye to anyone who has a VPN. What are those things for anyway if not to circumvent government censor ship. Side eye, who am I kidding block and ban those too and anyone caught in possession of one deserves a little enhanced interrogation so we'll know what they've been up to.

The scary looking gun ban is a start but NZ really needs to ban all guns. All semi automatics, all handguns and don't forget those shotguns, the killer had one of those.

Build some camps to hold the dissenters, the people who oppose these sorts of measures. I head that Kiwis are 1005 behind the above types of measures, but you can never be sure. Better safe than sorry.

Make Islam the official state religion and increase the number of refugees taken in with a goal to making white people a minority. There should be no objection to this.

I hope the above satisfies your request

 

[Steve]

You do realise we're talking about head scarves and not the burqa here?

The burqa, I agree, is a symbol of oppression. Head scarves, not so much. Lots of cultures use them, and I think it was already mentioned, several christian sects do as well. Christ, my mum used to wear one in the '60s and she was sure as hell not oppressed.

I love your attempt by any means at all to cast something that might appease your faux outrage.

Maybe a nice hot cup of tea will help? (since Douglas Adams was mentioned)

You can't be serious! Headscarves and burqas are actually different things?
What a revelation!

My mum also wore head scarves in the 60's. Maybe they knew each other.

What is it that you think I am outraged about? And why faux? Just because an opinion is different than yours does not mean it is not honest.

 

[Steve]

From how he describes it, I would say he doesn't know the difference, but I'll bet as soon as he reads your post, he will have scurried off to Google it, then will come back claiming he knew all along.

You're funny. And wrong.

Is there a purpose in attempting to belittle a person with an opinion different than yours? Other that making you feel superior, I mean?

 

[Steve]

...I look forward to you joining myself and other Social Justice Warriors while we unite to fight the patriarchy.



Here's the thing about symbols though. Symbols aren't an objective thing. They are entirely up to your personal interpretation. They are dependent on (among many other things) your life experiences, on your personal biases, what media you consume and what your parents taught you.

What you saw in New Zealand was a symbol of "oppression": but what I saw (and I live here, so I saw the whole thing go down much closer than you) was a symbol of love, of compassion, of hope, it was a symbol of everything I want our society to be. I've never seen the country more united. And I've lived through the Springbok tour, the Rainbow Warrior, Moutoa Gardens. What happened here had the potential to divide the nation. But we have gotten stronger.

Symbols only have power if you give them that power.



And we are free to listen to your arguments, examine them with a critical eye, and disregard them.

You have no idea what political and social causes I am involved with.

As for the rest of your post I agree that NZ has reacted very well in the face of this tragedy. My opinions re women choosing head scarves as a symbol is not a major issue and I really do not understand the excessive emotional responses and personal attacks I am seeing here.

 

[Darat]

The logical fallacies in this thread are quite astounding.

Sadly it is not astounding as that those like yourself who seem to think if "Islam" is mentioned in a thread then all we should be doing is criticising the people who follow that religion or the relgion itself. It's just the usual crap.

 

[Steve]

OK



If this is not bludgeoning the issue with a hammer, then its a bad case of tone deafness. There is nothing "nuanced" or "balanced" about suggesting that the national leader should take a placard into a place of worship on an occasion such as this.



More tone deafness (and ignorance). This guy doesn't even understand the difference between hijab and burkha. A burkha is subservient garb, hijab is not.

Hijab is the principle of "modesty" and includes behaviour and dress for both males and females. Female hijab is the covering of the head, male hijab is the covering of legs down to at least the knees.... you never see devout Muslim men wearing shorts in public.*

If you are going to claim that Muslim women being expected to cover their heads somehow makes them oppressed and subservient, then the fact that Muslim men are supposed to cover their legs UNDER THE SAME RULES, means that you are by default claiming the the men are oppressed also. You cannot have it both ways.

*Note that exceptions are allowed for sportsmen and sportwomen participants in football codes, and bat & ball codes such as cricket...

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/38u5isy4365yqsg/PWC.jpg?raw=1[/qimg]
The Pakistan Women's Cricket team

Now this hilite I will take issue with. My neighbor across the street is most definitely a devout muslim. I regularly see him heading off to his mosque wearing the appropriate dress. When he is home and working in his garden in warm weather his choice of clothes is usually shorts, sandals and a tank top.

 

[Stout]

Good news people, the morning constitutional wasn't completely finished ( burritos last night ) and I've come up with some more ways to fight right wing terrorism and well as help New Zealanders improve their country.

That song I shot the Sheriff, that thing just HAS to go. If people can be influenced by the manifesto then surly people who like that song might be influenced to take a shot at the police.

Change the New Zealand flag to the rainbow, as a symbol of diversity and inclusion.

Uh oh, more burrito action is nigh, BRB.

 

[Steve]

In Stockholm, Sweden, a human wall formed around a mosque during friday's prayers to symbolically shield the worshippers inside. The manifestation was organized by a Jewish man who said he wanted to reciprocate the similar action of Norwegian Muslims after an attack against a synagogue.

That's pretty cool.

Admirable indeed.

 

[uke2se]

Facts are inconvenient sometimes.

Apparently. And the facts are that Muslims were targetted by a white supremacist, 50 of them were murdered, the murderer drew inspiration from various right wing figures often lauded by certain people on this forum and the ideological brethren of those people want to talk about how bad it is for the NZ PM to wear a hijab in solidarity with the slain.