The first anti Islam marches in Australia over easter. - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
#14561627
Pants-of-dog wrote:
As I said, I was discussing ALL theists.

If you think I am claiming that Muslims lack agency, then you must logically believe I am saying the same about Jews, Christians, and anyone else who was raised in a certain religion.


P-o-D believes whatever it is convenient for him to believe at the time he utters a sentence. Whether or not he continues to believe it when he utters the next sentence is anyone's guess.

Muslims can be held accountable for their actions, and should be.


Except when they did not choose their religious background, which P-o-D believes is

This does not change the fact that most adults believe in whatever religion they grew up believing.


always.
#14561629
Saeko wrote:P-o-D believes whatever it is convenient for him to believe at the time he utters a sentence. Whether or not he continues to believe it when he utters the next sentence is anyone's guess.


I am a veritable chameleon of ideas.

That does not change the fact that most adults believe in whatever religion they grew up believing.

Except when they did not choose their religious background, which P-o-D believes is always.


You want to hold Muslims accountable for the fact that they were raised as Muslims?
#14561643
Frollein wrote:Nope.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes. Religion and ideology are two different things. If you do not understand that, then you simply do not have the requisite knowledge to discuss how ideology, politics, and religion relate to each other.
I suggest you stop labeling people who disagree with you as ignorant and unfit to discuss your pet issues on PoFo or elsewhere. It makes you look pompous and desperate at the same time and it doesn't stop me from discussing whatever I damn well please. If you find yourself unable to continue this discussion, be gracious about it and bow out.

By the way, the definitions you copied from Wikipedia support my point, not yours :

"Religion = an organized collection of beliefs that relate humanity to an order of existence."
"Ideology = the imaginary relation to the real conditions of existence."
A rose by any other name... or do you assert that a "collection of beliefs" is not "imaginary"?

F wrote:But thanks for admitting that they choose to keep following their ideology and are not its hapless victims.
Pants-of-dog wrote:This weird claim of yours is based on the faulty premise that religion and ideology are one. Thus, it is wrong.
Since you yourself just proved my premise, my claim isn't false. It also isn't weird, as every adult who follows an ideology is choosing to believe in its tenets and not in those of any other ideology. If your claim was true and there is no choice, then Muslims cannot help but be Muslims all their life. They cannot convert to Christianity or reject theism altogether. Now that would be a weird claim, don't you think?

F wrote:That's what you like to believe. Unfortunately, the massing up of "isolated incidents" is telling another story.
Pants-of-dog wrote:I believe that Muslims have a diversity of beliefs.

You believe they are all bloodthirsty killers who want to impose Sharia on everyone and suicide bomb everyone all the time.

I will leave it at that.
Actually, the only diversity is between Muslims who follow their book to the letter, which is exactly what the ideology is demanding of every follower, and those who prefer to stand back and look on.

I remember there was a precedence for that behavior, and it wasn't approved on. Sadly, there was no Pants-of-Dog around to claim that Germans had a diversity of beliefs in Nazi Germany and not every German was a Nazi. Not speaking up against the murderers, not fighting against them meant that they were all complicit in every crime of the regime. That was the consensus among the victors and to this day I never heard that it changed. Now why in the world should I extend so much leniency to adherents of another totalitarian ideology who look on in silence to the crimes their fellow Muslims commit against gays, women, apostates and infidels?

I observe that they are growing in number and in influence, while the Christian church is declining in both regards.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure, but that does not mean that they are currently a greater threat to women's rights.

In order to be more of a threat to women's rights now, they would have to be more powerful now.
Oh, so how long should we wait? Until they start burning pregnant women? Oh, wait...
#14561650
Decky wrote:The thread is dead now. Every post will be a back and forth with that plague on the forum. People need to learn to ignore him and discus the story with each other or this will go the way of everything else he touches.


For the hatred of Allah, people, don't you see? It's happening again and again and again. The same meaningless waffle, enough strawmen to fill a dozen fields. Decky the Baptist, my precursor, opened our eyes to this peril and I have carried on his noble work even when he too fell pray to temptation. Repent, my children, repent and follow the path of righteous debate, not trivial bollocks.
#14561657
Image

The one thing I can agree with the council worker in NSW is the Reclaim Australia movement's feminist platform, while it's questionable if Shermon Burgess ('The Great Aussie Patriot') actually supports gender equality. Many women oppose Islam mainly because of the degrading treatment of Muslim women and it's inhumane to force women to cover them up in the 40-degree weather in Australia. It's generally the mass migration of manual labourers of any ethnic group that leads to all kinds of social problems, such as a higher unemployment rate for the native population and the lack of funds for social services, which is why the UK is holding the EU referendum.
#14561665
Pants-of-dog wrote:You want to hold Muslims accountable for the fact that they were raised as Muslims?

Apparently since your ideological grouping would like to hold Koreans accountable for the fact that they were born Korean, then sure, why not?

See an example here: [Link]

Apparently "there have been enough excuses" in Korea and the white centre-leftists believe that 'the excuses should end' and that of course Koreans should begin embracing black bodies from Africa as soon as possible as part of a supposed transition from a monolithic homogenous society into a multicultural mode.*

Excuses for Muslims being Muslim however? I'm sure those will continue indefinitely.

_________
*NB: Of course, Koreans are not going to listen to white centre-leftists. White centre-leftists will be told to go fuck themselves as usual.
#14561728
Thank you Rei for this article.

More to the point, there is younger generation of Korean children eager to learn English and hear about the world. They will be the first generation of Koreans that have the capability to transform Korea into a truly accepting, multicultural society.


After all, multiculturalism is the future of Korea and the multinational world. Being culturally aware doesn’t signify the end of Korean culture.



It is time to give the youth the exposure to people of all races. There have been enough excuses.

Indeed.

Image
Image
#14561735
Yep, there are lots of articles like that, where the centre-left is basically trying to export their ideas into the East in the hopes that somehow it will catch on and that whole cultures will commit suicide when asked.

And it's interesting to note that white centre-leftists are the kind of people who will go to East Asia, be treated generally with respect and even enthusiastic curiosity, only to then turn around afterwards and bring out criticism because their hosts were not similarly accepting of other groups that they are not members of. It's incredible.

It's similar to how they are also saying these days that East Asians apparently 'need' to be given a stern lecture at a societal level because many people are 'not aware of Jews' or 'harbour anti-Jewish sentiments'. The other one they are coming with now is, that East Asians 'do not respect Islam', and 'need to develop an understanding that Islam can be a positive influence' or something like that.

The centre-left is literally poison, they are literally the poison that is trying to destroy the world. If you let the into a society and give them a platform, eventually they will start assaulting you with these subversive ideas, and you'll have to be continually rebuffing them over and over again.
#14561738
I wonder though, these white centre-leftists, what drives them forward in this little brainwashing game of theirs?
What emotion, what idea or desire guides their hearts to be so blind to reality of our world?

For thousands of years, when mankind all over world saw another tribe come unto their lands, they called it invasion.

For white centre-leftists, that invasion has become a fetish, a thing which they cherish above everything.

This picture always amazes me.
Image


Can I ask you how do you see this entire multiculturalism thing ending, Rei Murasame?
Who will win and who will die?
#14561746
Multiculturalism is a type of racism. It arises out of an Anglocentric view of the world in which the Western "white" man is the centre piece, the neutral figure, around which all other cultures must be gathered. It is a completely orientalist conception. In the end Western multiculturalism simply becomes a parody of itself. It is nothing more than the creation of people who are inadvertently promoting that which they despise, the objectification of culture and the homogenisation of the world under the Western liberal ideal.

Rei Murasame wrote:And it's interesting to note that white centre-leftists are the kind of people who will go to East Asia, be treated generally with respect and even enthusiastic curiosity, only to then turn around afterwards and bring out criticism because their hosts were not similarly accepting of other groups that they are not members of. It's incredible.


The silly part about it is that they don't seem to realise that they are themselves engaging in racism by doing this. When they feel fit to judge non-white, non-Western peoples and tell them what to do, what to believe, what to think and how to run their societies, they are acting like colonial overlords who think they know better than Asians. Are Asians not allowed to think for themselves? Do they need some white centre-left Westerner to lecture them about what they must do? The arrogance is without parallel.

Azure Angel wrote:I wonder though, these white centre-leftists, what drives them forward in this little brainwashing game of theirs?
What emotion, what idea or desire guides their hearts to be so blind to reality of our world?

For thousands of years, when mankind all over world saw another tribe come unto their lands, they called it invasion.

For white centre-leftists, that invasion has become a fetish, a thing which they cherish above everything.


It is driven by many factors. Foremost among them is a type of boredom and apathy as well as a complete lack of idealism. In order for a person to believe in the existence of nations they must be an idealist. However I believe that most centrist multiculturalists are not idealists and come to their opinions through a lack of inspiration or interest in anything really political.

Another factor is the notion that multiculturalism is a perceived historic inevitability. Many Westerners seem to hold this notion. Simply being against it is completely socially unacceptable within the English speaking world. Anyone who disagrees will be ostracised from society and they will feel enormous guilt within themselves. Therefore they are reluctant to voice their opposition. I've gotten to the point where I don't care what people say about me, but you can be sure that when I do say what I think I am always called a "nazi" or "racist". It makes me very upset but I know I can't cower because I'm sure that I am neither of those things.

We must also remember that Westerners feel a tremendous uneasiness about who they are. In large part this is due to their colonial history and also due to the legacy of slavery. They are burdened with a tremendous guilt which most other peoples do not have. I'm sure that in Croatia very few people feel guilt about being Croats. To the contrary I can imagine that most Croats are content with being who they are or are even quite patriotic. When a group of people feel as though they are inherently evil and that they deserve to be punished for their colonial sins, they will naturally embrace all of this type of thinking. At my school I remember being taught about racism and told that I had "white privilege". I wasn't older than thirteen years old when such ideology was introduced to me. I believe there really is a lot of self-hatred among many Anglo Westerners.

Many Westerners are not educated about their family history. Many do not even know the names of their great grandfathers or great grandmothers, who they were, or what they did. There is very little sense of rootedness like that which exists in Eastern Europe or the Balkans.
#14561754
Azure Angel wrote:Can I ask you how do you see this entire multiculturalism thing ending, Rei Murasame?

Where do I see it ending? Basically the centre-left will increasingly push the envelope until they run up onto a level of absurdity so profound that the general public will respond with outrage and they'll all end up here:

Image

The Nurse's Office.

The centre-left haven't understood that as Zbigniew Brzezinski accurately pointed out, the globalisation process actually leads to a coming together of people, and a reduction in the distances between people on a perceptual level and - in cases of mass migration - a geographical level, but at the same time it pushes those same people further away from each other because it forces everyone to confront their differences.

By refusing to recognise the actual differences between groups, and refusing to recognise that specific population groups will always want to have dominance over whatever civic space they control so that they can chart out their evolutionary destiny, the centre-left in fact forces people to confront and codify this reality by way of a reaction.

After all, a person's basic existence is tied to the identity of the community that they are a part of. Human beings cannot actually exist outside of society, and the isolated individual that is exalted by liberalism - the human being who stands alone - is always defeated in end because it has no reason to carry on. Only when the individual submits themselves to a higher purpose, a cause greater than themselves, do they become powerful and 'immortal' as a group. On a gut level, all humans know this. And that is why whenever the centre-left tries to take away people's identity, the people react by trying desperately to strengthen the frameworks and narratives that will allow them to hold onto it, or they find a new one and repeat the process.

You also asked why they do what they do. The reason that the centre-left so wants to strip away people's identities, is because the centre-left wants to preserve innocence. You see that image you've used there where they have the placards that talk about standing 'against all hate'? That is the driving motivation. Standing against all forms of hate is a mantra for them not because they desire to reduce suffering (since certainly, the position in fact increases suffering for many in reality), but because they don't want to feel guilty about any hateful statements or actions that might arise from having an identity and acting to defend it. They want innocence, and the only way to be innocent is to take no actions in the name of anything at all. And to accomplish that, they must dissolve all group identifications, and coast by on sheer inertia. That's what it is about at it's root. Ironically, they make an age-old mistake on top of all that, by becoming attached to the identity of seeking to have no attachment, and this then allows them to be targeted for criticism as a group regardless.

It really is that simple. Seeking innocence, because of the idea that those who have no agenda cannot be blamed for organising any actions, because there would be no actions to organise. It's basically crazy. That's what the centre-left is trying to do, but it can only work for them if they can convince everyone including their opponents to see it their way and adopt their views, so that there would no longer be any differentiation between 'centre-left' and 'everyone else out there'.

Ultimately, the centre-left will fail for a variety of reasons, but one of the factors will be regional development in Asia and the rise of regional organisations and more advanced manufacturing, will cause a shift in global patterns of wealth accumulation so that more Asian people will have time for introspection and 'middle class activities' and out of that will come a 'de-globalising' cultural effect, where white centre-leftists will find that their ability to shape the global culture has been diminished and they will be facing informed counter-arguments from the East. After all, it would be the height of absurdity for them to expect to go to Asians who have only just now started to recover some prestige and autonomy after almost two centuries of being kicked around and spat upon, and be told by none other than white people, that they need to 'give up their pride' and 'surrender all exclusionary narratives and embrace multiculturalism'.

The centre-left will be punched out.
#14561763
Frollein wrote:By the way, the definitions you copied from Wikipedia support my point, not yours :

"Religion = an organized collection of beliefs that relate humanity to an order of existence."
"Ideology = the imaginary relation to the real conditions of existence."
A rose by any other name... or do you assert that a "collection of beliefs" is not "imaginary"?


I will point out the important difference:

Ideology is necessarily a socially normative belief, while religion is not necessarily so.

Since religion is not necessarily socially normative, then we can have private religion, where we see religion as a guiding moral light for ourselves or the community of believers, but not for the general public. For example, there are Christians who would never have an abortion or marry someone of the same sex yet support the right of others to do so.

Thus, your premise (that religion and ideology are the same thing) is false.

F wrote:Since you yourself just proved my premise, my claim isn't false. It also isn't weird, as every adult who follows an ideology is choosing to believe in its tenets and not in those of any other ideology. If your claim was true and there is no choice, then Muslims cannot help but be Muslims all their life. They cannot convert to Christianity or reject theism altogether. Now that would be a weird claim, don't you think?


I never said there was no choice. I said most people stay in the religion they grew up in.

The fact that people convert shows that choice is possible.

F wrote:Actually, the only diversity is between Muslims who follow their book to the letter, which is exactly what the ideology is demanding of every follower, and those who prefer to stand back and look on.


Do you support military actions in majority Muslim countries.

If so, then you are one of those westerners who prefers to stand back and look on while Muslim innocents are killed. Thus, to make the moral argument that such behaviour is bad in Muslims is ironic and a double standard.

Oh, so how long should we wait? Until they start burning pregnant women? Oh, wait...


You should worry about Muslim clergy more than Christian clergy when Muslim clergy hold more power in society than Christian clergy.

---------------------

Rei Murasame wrote:Apparently since your ideological grouping would like to hold Koreans accountable for the fact that they were born Korean, then sure, why not?

See an example here: [Link]

Apparently "there have been enough excuses" in Korea and the white centre-leftists believe that 'the excuses should end' and that of course Koreans should begin embracing black bodies from Africa as soon as possible as part of a supposed transition from a monolithic homogenous society into a multicultural mode.*


That was odd.

Back to the topic:

Excuses for Muslims being Muslim however? I'm sure those will continue indefinitely.


Muslims can be held accountable for their actions, and should be.
#14561772
Azure Angel wrote:This picture always amazes me.
Image
This is quite interesting. I believe Tachell is even interested in doing Gay pride marches though Muslim areas. Now that I would support. In fact I would be very happy to go on them and "fight" as the lefties are always demanding, to defend the march if necessary. You see this is the test whether any significant number of Muslims are willing to come out and demonstrate their support for Liberal values. Most "demonstrations" are a complete waste of time and energy, but Muslim demonstrations for Liberal causes would be worth while. They would actually demonstrate something that everybody didn't already know.

Its the same with the Catholic Church, accept women priests and Gay marriage and we'll get off your case. I'm not vindictive I'm more than happy to accept the unconditional surrender from any Monotheists.
#14561789
Frollein wrote:By the way, the definitions you copied from Wikipedia support my point, not yours :

"Religion = an organized collection of beliefs that relate humanity to an order of existence."
"Ideology = the imaginary relation to the real conditions of existence."
A rose by any other name... or do you assert that a "collection of beliefs" is not "imaginary"?
Pants-of-dog wrote:I will point out the important difference:

Ideology is necessarily a socially normative belief, while religion is not necessarily so.

Since religion is not necessarily socially normative, then we can have private religion, where we see religion as a guiding moral light for ourselves or the community of believers, but not for the general public. For example, there are Christians who would never have an abortion or marry someone of the same sex yet support the right of others to do so.
While I could start arguing about religion in general being socially normative, let's stay closer to the topic and regard Islam specifically. That religion most certainly is socially normative, so your argument falls flat - again. And my premise and its conclusion still stands.

Thus, your premise (that religion and ideology are the same thing) is false.
My premise is and always has been that Islam is an ideology. And it is.

F wrote:Since you yourself just proved my premise, my claim isn't false. It also isn't weird, as every adult who follows an ideology is choosing to believe in its tenets and not in those of any other ideology. If your claim was true and there is no choice, then Muslims cannot help but be Muslims all their life. They cannot convert to Christianity or reject theism altogether. Now that would be a weird claim, don't you think?
P wrote:I never said there was no choice. I said most people stay in the religion they grew up in.
No, you didn't. You excused Muslims holding misogynist views by saying that they had been "born that way":
P wrote:So, the vast majority of Muslims are Muslims because they were brought by Muslims. They are not Muslims because they really enjoy misogyny or because they have sexist opinions.


P wrote:The fact that people convert shows that choice is possible.
Right, and since the vast majority of Muslims chooses to not convert, but to stay Muslim, they thereby choose to support Islam's stance towards gays, women and infidels. Stop trying to evade the point, the whole discussion is here on display, anyone can read what you wrote a few pages back. It's neither smart nor especially sophisticated of you.

F wrote:Actually, the only diversity is between Muslims who follow their book to the letter, which is exactly what the ideology is demanding of every follower, and those who prefer to stand back and look on.
P wrote:Do you support military actions in majority Muslim countries.
Stay on topic.

P wrote:If so, then you are one of those westerners who prefers to stand back and look on while Muslim innocents are killed. Thus, to make the moral argument that such behaviour is bad in Muslims is ironic and a double standard.
Stay on topic. You are the one defending Muslims standing by silently while people are killed and enslaved in the name of their ideology, so spare me your whataboutism.

Oh, so how long should we wait? Until they start burning pregnant women? Oh, wait...
You should worry about Muslim clergy more than Christian clergy when Muslim clergy hold more power in society than Christian clergy.
No, I shouldn't. If I'd do that, Muslims would already be in a position to kill and terrorize women, gays and infidels with impunity. That movement should be stomped into the ground before it ever reaches a position of power.
#14561791
Frollein wrote:While I could start arguing about religion in general being socially normative, let's stay closer to the topic and regard Islam specifically. That religion most certainly is socially normative, so your argument falls flat - again. And my premise and its conclusion still stands.


No, it is not always so. For example, I work with a Muslim man who does not discuss religion, has no trouble taking orders from the female managers, and is otherwise not trying to make his religion the norm in the office.

My premise is and always has been that Islam is an ideology. And it is.


Thus, your premise (that religion and ideology are the same thing) is false.

F wrote:No, you didn't. You excused Muslims holding misogynist views by saying that they had been "born that way":


If we are at the point where you are telling me that I am not making the claims that I making, then the discussion is pointless.

Right, and since the vast majority of Muslims chooses to not convert, but to stay Muslim, they thereby choose to support Islam's stance towards gays, women and infidels. Stop trying to evade the point, the whole discussion is here on display, anyone can read what you wrote a few pages back. It's neither smart nor especially sophisticated of you.


Again, you are assuming that Islam has no diversity of belief, and you are assuming that Islam is necessarily normative. Neither of these assumptions are correct.

F wrote:Stay on topic. You are the one defending Muslims standing by silently while people are killed and enslaved in the name of their ideology, so spare me your whataboutism.


If you are maki8ng moral arguments, it is perfectly logical to point out that you do not apply the same morality to your side of the struggle you claim exists.

No, I shouldn't. If I'd do that, Muslims would already be in a position to kill and terrorize women, gays and infidels with impunity. That movement should be stomped into the ground before it ever reaches a position of power.


Since Christian clergy do not have the power to kill and terrorise women, gays and infidels with impunity, your comparison is false.
#14561795
I agree with POD in that it is not possible to essentialise Muslims. There are many different theological schools within Sunni Islam and many different religious movements.

However let us look at the simple fact, a society reflects whoever constitute the majority of that society. If a society is majority Muslim, it will reflect that. Most likely if Muslims were to become a demographic majority in any European country, they would act as Muslims. In other words it is likely that the society would become far more Islamic. Only a fool would deny this. This would certainly mean that elements of Shari'Ah law would be introduced unless of course there would be a strong tradition of secularism among the Muslims of the particular country. In many cases I don't believe there would be. I am not saying it is wrong of Muslims to act in such a way, in fact one would only expect them to do so, just as any other collective group of people do. Europeans did absolutely the same thing when they settled the Americas, Siberia, Africa, Australia and New Zealand. The question is do Westerners want a situation in which they are an ethno-religious minority? It is important to view the issue in a mature fashion and not become emotional or silly.
#14561808
Political Interest wrote:I agree with POD in that it is not possible to essentialise Muslims. There are many different theological schools within Sunni Islam and many different religious movements.

However let us look at the simple fact, a society reflects whoever constitute the majority of that society. If a society is majority Muslim, it will reflect that. Most likely if Muslims were to become a demographic majority in any European country, they would act as Muslims. In other words it is likely that the society would become far more Islamic. Only a fool would deny this. This would certainly mean that elements of Shari'Ah law would be introduced unless of course there would be a strong tradition of secularism among the Muslims of the particular country. In many cases I don't believe there would be. I am not saying it is wrong of Muslims to act in such a way, in fact one would only expect them to do so, just as any other collective group of people do. Europeans did absolutely the same thing when they settled the Americas, Siberia, Africa, Australia and New Zealand. The question is do Westerners want a situation in which they are an ethno-religious minority? It is important to view the issue in a mature fashion and not become emotional or silly.


I agree with all of this, more or less, and would simply like to add that projected population numbers indicate that Muslims will not be a majority in any Western country in the foreseeable future.

-------------------

Rei Murasame wrote:Well, now you are contradicting yourself. You have to decide which argument you are going with here.


No, I am not contradicting myself at all.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

That is impossible. Most nukes nowadays use SLBMs[…]

Left vs right, masculine vs feminine

Joe Stalin: "Mommy loves you!" Abusiv[…]

Theism vs Atheism

It's pointless to bother debating theism vs atheis[…]

Finland's Jewish Soldiers in WWII

Germany was actually very horrified and indeed thr[…]