• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

Roboramma said:
I don't really like to point this out because on this site it's so cliche, but correlation doesn't equal causation. Does religiosity cause the unequal treatment of women, or is it just correlated with it? I think there's certainly a valid argument to made that there is at least some causative effect, but you haven't made that argument, and the correlation on it's own isn't convincing.
Click to expand...

I think you are being wilfully obtuse when every Abrahamic religion and most others have rules that are damaging to women. As well as the fact that these rules get worse the more fundamentalist the religion and in regions in which said religions hold political power, fundamentalism is the norm rather than the exception.

These are not some out there philosophical concepts, but obvious trends. And ones that were obvious to most posters not that long ago. When the site was about combating the influence of those peddling falsehoods to get people to commit atrocities.
 
It is now stark that the women left behind after the tragedy are unable to access cash from the bank accounts, or drive, or in many cases speak English.
They were in many ways deprived of the freedoms Jacinda Ardern enjoys.
 
cullennz said:
smartcooky said:
Its a general observation. There are levels of bigotry and racism;

The "hard racist/bigot". They are the haters, they aggressively support white supremacists and say that people who support the victims or who would allow brown people to live and work in the country are race traitors. They blame immigrants for their own victimization, and are the most likely to become terrorists.

The "open racist/bigot". They don't like "others" (defined as anyone who is "other" w.r.t. themselves). When when asked they will say so. They think there nothing wrong with racist and religious jokes and memes that rely on bigotry. "....the Jews will not replace us"

The "soft racist/bigot". These are the "fine people on both sides" lot. Intellectual cowards who will never come out and say exactly what they think, because they don't want to actually be pegged as racists even if that is what they, and everyone else knows, they are.

The "covert racist/bigot". These are the dog-whistlers. They try to pretend they are not racists or bigots, and will do and say things that you cannot quite pin down as racism or bigotry, such as being critical of the way one group acts in support of another, victimised group. These are by far the most prevalent ones. Most of them don't even realise that what they are doing is racist or bigoted. I've even caught myself saying things that would put me in this group, particularly when I get into a discussion about the existence gods and deities.

Satisfied?
Click to expand...


I think they meant by "Please show where anyone has said such despicable things"

"Please show where anyone has said such despicable things" on this forum

Rather than posting a bunch of your personal broad classifications

But then I could be wrong
Click to expand...


No, I think you're right. That's probably what they wanted. However, you are not right about smartcooky's post being his "personal broad classifications". They may be broad, but they aren't so personal that many of us don't recognize them immediately.

And if you want to see where someone has said "such despicable things", I can recommend Baylor's thread Visiting Morocco while being daft, naïve European girls - and in particular some of the posts that ended up in AAH. (At this point in time they're on p. 2.)
 
Last edited:
dann said:
No, I think you're right. That's probably what they wanted. However, you are not right about smartcooky's post being his "personal broad classifications". They may be broad, but they aren't so personal that many of us don't recognize them immediately.

And if you want to see where someone has said "such despicable things", I can recommend Baylor's thread Visiting Morocco while being daft, naïve European girls - and in particular some of the posts that ended up in AAH. (At this point in time they're on p. 2.)
Click to expand...

I agree with his classifications

Never said I didn't.

But the point was he hasn't given any evidence of his claims in a direct answer post to a post asking if he could give evidence of his claims the place is full racists

Edit: Apologies

His exact claim was "That's what bigots and racists do (and there are probably a lot more of them on this forum than you think). They want to side track the discussion about the evils of white supremacy into a tirade of victim blaming"
 
Last edited:
Baylor's thread excelled by blaming the victims in the title - and the victims weren't even brown, black or Muslims. The two Scandinavian women were blamed for not being anti-Muslims. And for the same reason I was accused of sympathizing with Islamic terrorists.
 
smartcooky said:
My upbringing was similar to yours to yours. I was born in the 1950s and spent my early years not far from where you did (Cheshunt, Herts is less than 50 miles away). I never saw a dark skinned man until we moved to NZ in the 1960s, he was the school janitor. In those days, Nelson was a virtual enclave of white, middle-class people - it has become the 3rd most diverse city in NZ, and for the better IMO
Click to expand...
Given my experience was the opposite of yours, I'm not surprised by your naivete and histrionics regarding race. The attitudes you hold only come from media conditioning and not hard-earned experience.
 
Last edited:
So Baylor's experience trumps everybody else's experience.
Could we now get back to what the Muslims experienced in New Zealand at the hands of a white supremacist?
 
Last edited:
dann said:
So Baylor's experience trumps everybody's else's experience.
Could we now get back to what the Muslims experienced in New Zealand at the hands of a white supremacist?
Click to expand...

Forgive me if mentioned already

Interesting side note from Aus

Sco' Mo' is threatening jail to social media exec's with things like the video

Election coming up though, so trying to do butch I think, like our friend in Jordan with the Lord of the Rings handle

https://www.cnet.com/news/australia-threatens-social-media-laws-that-could-jail-tech-executives/
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
Which religions have been criticized other than Islam?
Click to expand...


It's just dudalb's attempt to stay 'in the middle', in this case between the Islamophobes and their accusations against their opponents, instead of somewhere between the Islamophobes and the actual critics of Islamophobia. When the Islamophobes accuse their critics of Islamophilia, dudalb is convinced that the middleground is somewhere between the Islamophobes and their delusional ideas about their critics.
 
Steve said:
Does it really matter? The inequality exists and it should not.
Click to expand...

It matters to questions about how to go about changing that situation.

If the main causative factor is religious belief, then the most effective way to change the situation may be to attempt to lower religiosity (how to do that is another question, but we could look at what factors led to it's decline elsewhere).

If the two are just correlated on the other hand, then the most effective way to decrease that inequality will be an entirely different strategy.
 
sadhatter said:
I think you are being wilfully obtuse when every Abrahamic religion and most others have rules that are damaging to women. As well as the fact that these rules get worse the more fundamentalist the religion and in regions in which said religions hold political power, fundamentalism is the norm rather than the exception.

These are not some out there philosophical concepts, but obvious trends. And ones that were obvious to most posters not that long ago. When the site was about combating the influence of those peddling falsehoods to get people to commit atrocities.
Click to expand...

I think to a large extent that these religions have these attributes because they exist within misogynistic cultures, rather than the other way around. People don't actually get their morality from religion, they only use it as a framework from which to justify a morality that they came to through other means.

But there is a degree of oversimplification there, and ideas do affect people. I suspect that you are right that there is some causative influence from religion to the actions of people, at least in so much as it will bring a little more inertia into the system (it takes time for people to change their minds, and once they've justified their viewpoint through religion, it might take longer than otherwise).

My real point wasn't really that you are wrong (and certainly my view may be wrong), only that the evidence you brought to the table didn't demonstrate that conclusion that you made.
 
Samson said:
It is now stark that the women left behind after the tragedy are unable to access cash from the bank accounts, or drive, or in many cases speak English.
They were in many ways deprived of the freedoms Jacinda Ardern enjoys.
Click to expand...
To turn this upside down, if the women were killed the men would have access to the bank accounts, be driving, and be speaking English.
But in New Zealand right now this asymmetry is of NO ACCOUNT and will not be for a generation.
 
Samson said:
To turn this upside down, if the women were killed the men would have access to the bank accounts, be driving, and be speaking English.
But in New Zealand right now this asymmetry is of NO ACCOUNT and will not be for a generation.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with the fact that a white supremacist and terrorist killed 50 muslims?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom