[Steve_American]

Sorry for the poorly phrased title/subject. It has to fit in the space allowed. So, I'll give the real tile here.

{Sorry again, I've got to rush off, I'll reread and edit this later today.}

Is it hypocritical to use 1 post as proof of racism* [of the poster], but always shift the burden of proof onto anyone who makes *any* negative statement about a group of non-white people?

How can readers of just 1 post be able to jump to the conclusion that the poster is a racist? OK, I will agree that some longer more detailed posts would contain sufficient info for people to reasonably infer this conclusion. But, even then it may be a mistake. Is it really that easy to see into the heart of another person based on an internet post?

And yet those same Liberals make the claim that it is not possible to know that some group of people [that the Liberals have on a list of protected people] are a big threat to the ongoing European Culture that the people of Europe have developed over the last couple of centuries and which they think is how they want to live. I said “big” there for a reason. A small threat may be shrugged off. The key question it seems to me [ISTM] is --- is this a big threat. But, we never get to debate this because we get blocked and diverted by accusations of racism [or what should should be religionist, see the note below]. I go further and claim that it is the Culture of the recent immigrants that is the problem. I say this because it is true that Muslims from the orient may be or certainly are different from Muslims from the Arab world. And their Culture may not be objectionable.

So, Liberals can easily see into the heart of 1 poster based on 1 post, but refuse to see the mountain of evidence that some of the recent immigrants are a problem in Europe**.


. * . I define racism a lot more narrowly than the current liberal definition seems to be.
Racism is the belief that all [or the vast majority of]
people of a given race [or who are seen to have 1 characteristic of that race, for example, brown skin]
are inferior, or have some specific inferior behavior trait [lazy, criminality, stupid].
Note that religion is not a race, so attacks on people of a given religion can not be 'racism'.
However, attacks on people of a given religion can be massively objectionable. Maybe we need a word for this in the English vocabulary. Maybe “religion+ist”, religionist?
The reason we really need to keep race and religion separate ISTM [it seems to me] is that there is absolutely no way for a person to change their race, but they can change their religion. Or their religion can change to not have the element of faith that the non-believers see as the problem.
To use a fairly recent example from history, I give you for example the Thugs of India about 100 years ago [+/- 50 yr.]. They demanded that converts murder a random person on the street. The British put them down. IIRC We don't hear any reports of Thugs in India.

** . I say in Europe, I didn't say in America. The main reason I can say this is that America would never let brown immigrants commit crimes while American police departments are ordered not to investigate reports by the victims. This was and may still be common practice or the only practice in some nations in Europe. Note: I said “brown immigrants” to say that America is racist enough to never let brown people commit crimes and not be investigated. I didn't say I am racist.

If you are willing to jump from a statement that “America is racist in many ways” to Steve_American is a racist; then why can't I jump from “many Muslim immigrants to Europe say they believe X” to “European police departments should take seriously the complaints that the victim of a crime is making”?

[One Degree]

Why let it bother you? Calling someone a ‘racist’ just demonstrates their ignorance. No one else is capable of knowing what you think therefore their accusations of ‘racism’ are an admission of bias and ignorance. I just see it as them holding up a white flag in the debate.