MrJonno wrote:Plenty of 'secular' and 'christian' racism against brown people/muslims but then again their is a lot of intra-islam racism against other muslims too
To be fair to islam, it certainly makes anti-racist statements, and makes at least some attempt to be a religion for all races...
Deep down, not for absolutely pure motives - you gain more adherents if you can demonstrate that all races are welcome...
And Christianity has done the same, with notable racist blips here and there...
MrJonno wrote:Plenty of 'secular' and 'christian' racism against brown people/muslims but then again their is a lot of intra-islam racism against other muslims too
To be fair to islam, it certainly makes anti-racist statements, and makes at least some attempt to be a religion for all races...
Deep down, not for absolutely pure motives - you gain more adherents if you can demonstrate that all races are welcome...
And Christianity has done the same, with notable racist blips here and there...
Not so Judaism, really...
Pity it doesn't do the same for gender as for race....?
nxnxm,cm,m,fvmf,vndfnm,nm,f,dvm,v v vmfm,vvm,d,dd vv sm,mvd,fmf,fn ,v fvfm,
Exi5tentialist wrote:There's islamophobia, then there's racism. The two are very closely related, and atheism is often a cover for both.
There is a connection, in that they are overlapping sets, but the connection is not deep or causal. It is true that right-wing nationalists attempt to use reasonable distrust of islamic fundamentalism as a cover for their own racism, which needs to be watched carefully...
But atheism is not a cover for both - it is not a movement in the sense you seem to think it is...
I said 'often': Often atheism is a cover for both. I don't know how that is supposed to mean I think atheism is a movement. Clearly it isn't.
New Atheism has the characteristics of a movement: coherence, some heros, a forward-moving mass of humanity, its own precepts, its own prejudices: there I probably would say most of the time islamophobia is a cover for racism most of the time, if not all. Generalisations about the people of the middle east always being in tribal war with one another would fall into that category.
Exi5tentialist wrote:There's islamophobia, then there's racism. The two are very closely related, and atheism is often a cover for both.
There is a connection, in that they are overlapping sets, but the connection is not deep or causal. It is true that right-wing nationalists attempt to use reasonable distrust of islamic fundamentalism as a cover for their own racism, which needs to be watched carefully...
But atheism is not a cover for both - it is not a movement in the sense you seem to think it is...
I said 'often': Often atheism is a cover for both. I don't know how that is supposed to mean I think atheism is a movement. Clearly it isn't.
New Atheism has the characteristics of a movement: coherence, some heros, a forward-moving mass of humanity, its own precepts, its own prejudices: there I probably would say most of the time islamophobia is a cover for racism most of the time, if not all. Generalisations about the people of the middle east always being in tribal war with one another would fall into that category.
You don't see the size of the comng population collapse. This is the only mistake but it is the central one of futurogists today. Try to imagine a planet not govered by memes but only genes.
nxnxm,cm,m,fvmf,vndfnm,nm,f,dvm,v v vmfm,vvm,d,dd vv sm,mvd,fmf,fn ,v fvfm,
FBM wrote:After all the shit he'd done, he shoulda sphincter coming.
What did he do exactly? I still haven't heard a good reason. Just a lot of bollocks allegations that have not been proven.
Let it be a lesson to you.
Perhaps you, too, will sieze control of a country and rule it cruelly and incompetently. And then perhaps you, too, will learn The Lesson, as others have learned it, in various ways. When the people you have lorded over suddenly turn on you, hunt you down, sodomize you, shoot you in the head, and put you in a meat locker for viewing purposes, YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG.
Hint: figure out what that 'something wrong' is, and you will know not to ever do it. If you are too stupid to figure out what that 'something wrong' is, then your best hope lies in the unlikelihood of your ever being able to sieze control of a country and rule it cruelly and incompetently.
Yes, that's all very nicely threatening and cryptic, but it doesn't answer my question does it?
I suppose you don't have an answer. I suspect the reason for international public hate of Gadaffi has more to do with a psychological foible known as 'transferrance'. People fed up with feeling or effectively being disenfranchised look at a dictator deposed and brutally killed in the streets without due process and cheer. They don't seem to care about the reason. The fact that he was a 'dictator' is enough. Strangely, there are no calls to depose the Saudi royal family.
FBM wrote:After all the shit he'd done, he shoulda sphincter coming.
What did he do exactly? I still haven't heard a good reason. Just a lot of bollocks allegations that have not been proven.
Let it be a lesson to you.
Perhaps you, too, will sieze control of a country and rule it cruelly and incompetently. And then perhaps you, too, will learn The Lesson, as others have learned it, in various ways. When the people you have lorded over suddenly turn on you, hunt you down, sodomize you, shoot you in the head, and put you in a meat locker for viewing purposes, YOU HAVE DONE SOMETHING WRONG.
Hint: figure out what that 'something wrong' is, and you will know not to ever do it. If you are too stupid to figure out what that 'something wrong' is, then your best hope lies in the unlikelihood of your ever being able to sieze control of a country and rule it cruelly and incompetently.
Yes, that's all very nicely threatening and cryptic, but it doesn't answer my question does it?
I suppose you don't have an answer. I suspect the reason for international public hate of Gadaffi has more to do with a psychological foible known as 'transferrance'. People fed up with feeling or effectively being disenfranchised look at a dictator deposed and brutally killed in the streets without due process and cheer. They don't seem to care about the reason. The fact that he was a 'dictator' is enough. Strangely, there are no calls to depose the Saudi royal family.
I don't even think there is an "international hatred" for Gadhaffi. It's just a media circus. The mainstream western media has a hatred for Gadaffi, and possibly the people who still believe anything reported on mainstream "news" channels. It just happens that the western militaries were involved in the civil war in Libya so with they have to cheer Gadaffi's death.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
sandinista wrote:I don't even think there is an "international hatred" for Gadhaffi. It's just a media circus. The mainstream western media has a hatred for Gadaffi, and possibly the people who still believe anything reported on mainstream "news" channels. It just happens that the western militaries were involved in the civil war in Libya so with they have to cheer Gadaffi's death.
You forgot to blame the Americans.
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”
sandinista wrote:I don't even think there is an "international hatred" for Gadhaffi. It's just a media circus. The mainstream western media has a hatred for Gadaffi, and possibly the people who still believe anything reported on mainstream "news" channels. It just happens that the western militaries were involved in the civil war in Libya so with they have to cheer Gadaffi's death.
You forgot to blame the Americans.
You didn't forget to troll.
Our struggle is not against actual corrupt individuals, but against those in power in general, against their authority, against the global order and the ideological mystification which sustains it.
Exi5tentialist wrote:There is no question about it, Gaddafi was innocent of these charges:
Whoa.
Really?
Really?
Takes all kinds, I guess.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
FBM wrote:The US didn't do much military intervention in Libya, if international media are reliable.
Don't bother him with facts, his mind's made up.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
Exi5tentialist wrote:atheism is often a cover for both.
Bring on the black helicopters. Everybody got their UN armbands?
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
I keep reading the title as "Gadaffi was circumcised." I think it's from the "did you ever learn anything on the Intertubes" thread.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. -Thomas Jefferson
