The alt right - Mod Warning in OP

Odhinn

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I usually blank out faces referring to tweets, but this post I won,t as the person is known public figure with a verified account on Twitter, this is what Michael Nugent from ( Atheist Ireland ) said about the false term " Islamophobia " in the past, would anyone consider any of what Im quoting from Michael to be a " warped worldview " ?]

You could argue that the term is occassionally misapplied, but other than that, he's wrong.

recedite

If Islam was a race of people, it might be irrational to dislike them. But when the likes of Sam Harris and Michael Nugent criticise Islam they are being critical of an ideology which they see as harmful. There is nothing irrational about that. Therefore attempting to discourage any such criticism by calling it "Islamophobia" is a misnomer.
Islamophobia, if it existed, would be an irrational dislike of Islam. Such a thing could only exist if Islam was known to be objectively harmless.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

If Islam was a race of people, it might be irrational to dislike them. But when the likes of Sam Harris and Michael Nugent criticise Islam they are being critical of an ideology which they see as harmful. There is nothing irrational about that. Therefore attempting to discourage any such criticism by calling it "Islamophobia" is a misnomer.
Islamophobia, if it existed, would be an irrational dislike of Islam. Such a thing could only exist if Islam was known to be objectively harmless.

Not all of "Islam" and its followers are significantly harmful to any greater extent than other religions. There is an extremist element however.

I also question the objectivity of Harris on the subject.

ancapailldorcha

recedite wrote: »

If Islam was a race of people, it might be irrational to dislike them. But when the likes of Sam Harris and Michael Nugent criticise Islam they are being critical of an ideology which they see as harmful. There is nothing irrational about that. Therefore attempting to discourage any such criticism by calling it "Islamophobia" is a misnomer.
Islamophobia, if it existed, would be an irrational dislike of Islam. Such a thing could only exist if Islam was known to be objectively harmless.

That's a crock. Criticism of any idea, including Islam is of course logical. But what's being discussed is the vitriol being hurled at Muslims on a regular basis which is indeed racist.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

Not all of "Islam" and its followers are significantly harmful to any greater extent than other religions. There is an extremist element however.

I also question the objectivity of Harris on the subject.

That is an interesting point of view, but one you will surely have to substantiate and prove. The islamic world is not exactly known for its tolerance, openness and liberalism.

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's a crock. Criticism of any idea, including Islam is of course logical. But what's being discussed is the vitriol being hurled at Muslims on a regular basis which is indeed racist.

I think what happens here is that people fall between two stools.

Some people use Islamists as cover to have a go at all Muslims, which is wrong of course.

Some people however, hide behind words like Islamaphobia in an effort to not engage or debate any criticism of Islam, which is wrong as it ignores blatant issues.

So how do we debate in the middle?

In my limited view, there is a lot to critique about Islam and its treatment of women in particular along with homosexuals.
I also hate people bully others because they might be a Muslim or different, most are just trying to get on with life in their own way.

I think most Irish people hold this view. They would be generally cautious regarding Islam, the ideology itself, where they do not want to repeat the mistake of other countries. They would also be welcoming on an individual level to anyone coming here to work away and improve their lot.

A muslim who comes here and works away, pays their taxes, sends their kids to Irish dancing or whatever, where they become part of the community would be endeared to most Irish people. A muslim who comes here and starts proselytising about Sharia Law or anything related to political Islam wont get anywhere near winning over hearts and minds, well apart from a few fringe groups.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

That is an interesting point of view, but one you will surely have to substantiate and prove. The islamic world is not exactly known for its tolerance, openness and liberalism.

Yet the "islamic world" was never deemed an existential threat to the 'Western world' until Osama Bin Laden and the attack on NYC. The lack of tolerance etc seen is seen in many parts of the world. The fact is that the rhetoric and characterisation of muslims echoes demagoguery and stereotypes aimed at other groups in history - catholics, slavs, jews and so on. Once can see clear parallels between Luther's "On The Jews And Their Lies" and modern Islamophobic writings.

ancapailldorcha

markodaly wrote: »

In my limited view, there is a lot to critique about Islam and its treatment of women in particular along with homosexuals.
I also hate people bully others because they might be a Muslim or different, most are just trying to get on with life in their own way.

All religions hate homosexuals and women face more problems than just the opinions of Muslims. According to this, 936 women were murdered by men between 2009 and 2015 and yet the alt right is silent. They simply hate Muslims, immigration and diversity.

markodaly wrote: »

I think most Irish people hold this view. They would be generally cautious regarding Islam, the ideology itself, where they do not want to repeat the mistake of other countries. They would also be welcoming on an individual level to anyone coming here to work away and improve their lot.

A muslim who comes here and works away, pays their taxes, sends their kids to Irish dancing or whatever, where they become part of the community would be endeared to most Irish people. A muslim who comes here and starts proselytising about Sharia Law or anything related to political Islam wont get anywhere near winning over hearts and minds, well apart from a few fringe groups.

Most Muslims are the standard, boring hard working type. There are millions in the UK. It's only a miniscule minority behind the grooming gangs, hate speeches, terrorist attacks, etc. Those who prosetylise about Sharia law are in a minority. Most Muslims here might approve of it but that's not to say that they'd support imposing it on the population. The US and the UK are secular countries. The population aren't going to vote for a party that will curb civil liberties as dictated by Sharia law.

markodaly

Odhinn wrote: »

Yet the "islamic world" was never deemed an existential threat to the 'Western world' until Osama Bin Laden and the attack on NYC. The lack of tolerance etc seen is seen in many parts of the world. The fact is that the rhetoric and characterisation of muslims echoes demagoguery and stereotypes aimed at other groups in history - catholics, slavs, jews and so on. Once can see clear parallels between Luther's "On The Jews And Their Lies" and modern Islamophobic writings.

Not really the answer to the question I asked, if you have no proof of your earlier claim, that is OK.

markodaly

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Most Muslims are the standard, boring hard working type. There are millions in the UK. It's only a miniscule minority behind the grooming gangs, hate speeches, terrorist attacks, etc. Those who prosetylise about Sharia law are in a minority. Most Muslims here might approve of it but that's not to say that they'd support imposing it on the population. The US and the UK are secular countries. The population aren't going to vote for a party that will curb civil liberties as dictated by Sharia law.

I suppose that the the nub of the issue, how many Muslim actually believe in the harder elements of Islam? After 9/11 we were sold a bit of a pup when we were told that it was only a few hundred hardcore islamists in Afghan caves who were trouble. But now its a bit more murky. Studies show that there is a sizeable minority (or even majority depending on the belief) who hold beliefs that are counter to main stream Ireland or Western Europe. This creates suspicion and friction in their adopted home country, which is understandable from a human level. It is very hard to have a debate on this as it usually ends in shouting matches.

Mandrian is now 3rd as the most used language in an Irish household, ahead of Irish and behind Polish and English. Most people don't give a hoot, because from their experience, Chinese are apolitical and mostly irreligious.

China is also a relatively politically stable country with growing economic prosperity. The dog on the street knows that China is now a world power in those terms. The dog on the street also knows that the Middle East is not stable politically for a multiple of reasons and will form their own opinion on the reasons for that.

ancapailldorcha

In the UK, we're talking about a demographic of millions of people. Some people are using examples of abuse and terror perpetuated by maybe a few hundred of these people and then tarring that demographic with that brush.

The Middle East may not be terribly stable but we're not part of it. I believe in holding individuals responsible for their actions, not judging them on the basis of acts committed by people who look a bit like them.

recedite

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

But what's being discussed is the vitriol being hurled at Muslims on a regular basis which is indeed racist.

Is it racist to disapprove of this guy? Its far too easy to use the word "racist" as a catch-all term to shut down any debate you don't approve of.

Odhinn wrote: »

Yet the "islamic world" was never deemed an existential threat to the 'Western world' until Osama Bin Laden and the attack on NYC.

I see history is not your strong point then.
Look up the Siege of Vienna or the Reconquista.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

All religions hate homosexuals...

Eastern religions have always had gods of vague or non-specific gender, and the notion of a "third sex" was the norm until the Moghul invasions when the Indian continent was taken over by Islamic overlords.The problems we still see today centuries later, between Pakistan and India and between Bangladesh and Myanmar result from the fact that Islamic ideology was adopted by many people, but was never compatible with the native eastern philosophies.

ancapailldorcha

recedite wrote: »

Is it racist to disapprove of this guy? Its far too easy to use the word "racist" as a catch-all term to shut down any debate you don't approve of.

I think you know full well this is not what I am referring to.

PopePalpatine

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

All religions hate homosexuals and women face more problems than just the opinions of Muslims. According to this, 936 women were murdered by men between 2009 and 2015 and yet the alt right is silent. They simply hate Muslims, immigration and diversity.

They weren't so silent when /r/incels was still a thing.

Odhinn

markodaly wrote: »

Not really the answer to the question I asked,.............

Do please then clarify what your question was.

Odhinn

recedite wrote: »

I see history is not your strong point then.
Look up the Siege of Vienna or the Reconquista.

You might look at the date of those events.

recedite wrote: »

Eastern religions have always had gods of vague or non-specific gender, and the notion of a "third sex" was the norm until the Moghul invasions when the Indian continent was taken over by Islamic overlords.The problems we still see today centuries later, between Pakistan and India and between Bangladesh and Myanmar result from the fact that Islamic ideology was adopted by many people, but was never compatible with the native eastern philosophies.

There are letters, still extant, from Governors of India to London that emphasise the need to forment division between hindu and muslim.

It was the British that criminalised the the Hirja
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/liaquat-ali-khan/transgender-dignity-in-is_b_10089712.html

In the case of Myanamar you seem to be blaming the victims.
https://www.reuters.com/article/myanmar-nationalists/buddhist-nationalists-raise-new-fears-among-myanmars-muslims-idUSL4N1KQ2NN

MysticMonk

Odhinn wrote: »

Yet the "islamic world" was never deemed an existential threat to the 'Western world' until Osama Bin Laden and the attack on NYC.

Tell that to the people of Hungary who were at the vanguard of an attempted Ottoman invasion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Hungarian_wars

And of course the Islamic attacks on the west since the 1970s..in other words long before Osama bin Laden came to prominence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

Billy86

I'm sure those referencing the Crusades and the Ottoman Empire will also then agree that Irish people should have whatever restrictions are placed on Muslims matched, given our history.

"That was different" replies on a postcard.

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted. No more linkdumping please.

Odhinn

MysticMonk wrote: »

Tell that to the people of Hungary who were at the vanguard of an attempted Ottoman invasion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman%E2%80%93Hungarian_wars

And this is another facet of the problem - The ottoman empire seeks to expand and this recently becomes "muslim expansion", as if its different from the holy roman empire, austro-hungarians and so on - part of some Islamic monolith.

And again, look at the dates.
[QUOTE=MysticMonk;105462759
And of course the Islamic attacks on the west since the 1970s..in other words long before Osama bin Laden came to prominence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks[/QUOTE]

The attacks by the Palestinian groups are primarily political in motivation, likewise those related to Kashmir. Again, its interesting that until the attack on NYC in 2001, this anti-muslim hysteria was a thing so far off the radar the vast majority had never heard of it.

MysticMonk

Odhinn wrote: »

And this is another facet of the problem - The ottoman empire seeks to expand and this recently becomes "muslim expansion", as if its different from the holy roman empire, austro-hungarians and so on - part of some Islamic monolith.

Thats exactly what it was...you were right whilst you were attempting to be sarcastic.




Anyway...you must be right and absolutely every western security and police agency from the US to the crimea is wrong and there is NO threat from Muslims. None at all.

The Koran does NOT teach it's followers that they must breed in order to replace the infidel,charge them a tax or convert them under duress.

Nowhere does it speak of Dar al Islam

To Muslims the world can be divided between those who are faithful to Allah and those who do not know him. Sayyid Qutb (1906–66), author, poet and intellectual father of modern Muslim militancy, identifies two kinds of societies: Islamic and jahil (ignorant).
Stated another way, the world is divided between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb—the House of Islam and the House of War. The House of Islam is governed by Muslims under sharia (Islamic law). Most faithful Muslims share one mission: to bring the whole world into a system of governance marked by the religious-political authority and uniformity of Islam. Some Muslims seek to accomplish this through persuasion, while others employ tyranny.
All people not living by sharia are jahiliyya (the ignorant) and as such comprise Dar al-Harb, the House of War. Whole nations—those such as the United States and England and moderate Muslim countries such as Morocco and Jordan—are jahiliyya. Therefore, they are in a perpetual state of war with Dar al-Islam until they either submit to Islamic faith or are conquered by the sword.
The House of War is engaged in a battle with only one acceptable end. The war will be fought until every person and nation joins the House of Islam and the ignorant proclaim the Shahadah: “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger” (English translation).
Based on Muhammad’s life, Sayyid Qutb speaks of several stages of Islamic war: “a peaceful time of preparation, a migration, the creation of an Islamic state, and finally open warfare.”

Obviously i've just seen the way this thread is going to be moderated and the "contribution" from the moderator who deleted my posts so i better leave it before i say something i will regret...the typical blanket-banning of any information that doesn't suit whatever agenda

Odhinn

MysticMonk wrote: »

Thats exactly what it was...you were right whilst you were attempting to be sarcastic.

So all the other Empires in the world are just that, but when it comes to the Ottomans they're different. Because Islam. It's not the most convincing of theses.

MysticMonk wrote: »

Dar al Islam

You're quoting an extremist - they tend to say extreme things. It's the equivalent of me quoting Britain First as being somehow representative of the average British citizen.

MysticMonk

Odhinn wrote: »

You're quoting an extremist - they tend to say extreme things. It's the equivalent of me quoting Britain First as being somehow representative of the average British citizen.

Same old same old.."You're quoting an extremist and a racist blah blah"..fingers in the ears because you don't want to believe what other people are trying to tell you yet you think nothing of quoting Huffingdon Post.

And it might surprise you to learn that for increasing numbers of British people,Britain First *is* becoming representative of their views.

There are several similar organisations which have sprung up recently as a reaction to Islamic terrorism and Islamic expansion..but then the UK have actually suffered terrorist attacks on it's home soil..i'd love to see you "debate" this issue with relatives of one of the dozens of people killed in the UK by islamic terror.

In fact views such as *yours* are becoming less and less common..largely because you seem to be condoning islamic terrorism at the expense of your western,democratic culture. Perhaps you should move.

Odhinn

MysticMonk wrote: »

Same old same old.."You're quoting an extremist and a racist blah blah"..fingers in the ears because you don't want to believe what other people are trying to tell you yet you think nothing of quoting Huffingdon Post.

Are you saying its incorrect? - heres three other sites

"However, when the Indian subcontinent came under colonial rule during the 19th century, British authorities sought to eradicate and criminalize the Hijra community through various laws. These laws were later repealed after India attained independence."
https://theculturetrip.com/asia/india/articles/a-brief-history-of-hijra-indias-third-gender/

.....during the British rule of India, hijras were deemed as criminals.

http://www.india.com/lifestyle/the-history-of-hijras-south-asias-transsexual-and-transgender-community-540754/

In the 1850s, the British
“ discovered ”a community of transgender eunuch performers, the
hijras, and legislated for their surveillance and control under the Criminal Tribes Act (CTA) in 1871. This article examines how the British dealt with transgender colonial subjects and the implications for our understanding of colonial masculinities. In particular, I analyse colonial attempts to erase
hijras as a visible socio-cultural category and gender identity in public space through the prohibition of their performances and feminine dress.

"
http://www.academia.edu/7223064/Obscenity_Moral_Contagion_and_Masculinity_Hijras_in_Public_Space_in_Colonial_North_India

Would you care to addess the information above?

MysticMonk wrote: »

And it might surprise you to learn that for increasing numbers of British people,Britain First *is* becoming representative of their views.

.

It has no elected representatives at any level anywhere in Britain and is, afaik, no longer registered as a political party.

MysticMonk

Odhinn wrote: »

Are you saying its incorrect? - heres three other sites

"However, when the Indian subcontinent came under colonial rule during the 19th century, British authorities sought to eradicate and criminalize the Hijra community through various laws. These laws were later repealed after India attained independence."
https://theculturetrip.com/asia/india/articles/a-brief-history-of-hijra-indias-third-gender/



http://www.india.com/lifestyle/the-history-of-hijras-south-asias-transsexual-and-transgender-community-540754/

"
http://www.academia.edu/7223064/Obscenity_Moral_Contagion_and_Masculinity_Hijras_in_Public_Space_in_Colonial_North_India

Would you care to addess the information above?.

What's this obsession with eunuchs and transvestites?

Odhinn wrote: »

It has no elected representatives at any level anywhere in Britain and is, afaik, no longer registered as a political party.

Meh. You were the one who brought them up.

Odhinn

MysticMonk wrote: »

What's this obsession with eunuchs and transvestites?
.

I suggest reading back through the thread.

MysticMonk wrote: »

Meh. You were the one who brought them up.

.....as an example of unrepresentative extremists. You claimed they increasingly were representative and I pointed out they have no electoral mandate at any level and have been de-registered as a political party.

Brian?

MysticMonk wrote: »

Thats exactly what it was...you were right whilst you were attempting to be sarcastic.




Anyway...you must be right and absolutely every western security and police agency from the US to the crimea is wrong and there is NO threat from Muslims. None at all.

The Koran does NOT teach it's followers that they must breed in order to replace the infidel,charge them a tax or convert them under duress.

Nowhere does it speak of Dar al Islam





Obviously i've just seen the way this thread is going to be moderated and the "contribution" from the moderator who deleted my posts so i better leave it before i say something i will regret...the typical blanket-banning of any information that doesn't suit whatever agenda

The Ottaman Empire was not a Muslim expansion. It was an Ottoman Turk expansion. They slaughtered thousands of other Muslims before they had a go at Hungary.

recedite

Odhinn wrote: »

And this is another facet of the problem - The ottoman empire seeks to expand and this recently becomes "muslim expansion", as if its different from the holy roman empire, austro-hungarians and so on - part of some Islamic monolith.

Caliphate is the word you are looking for there. Islamic Caliphate

Odhinn wrote: »

So all the other Empires in the world are just that, but when it comes to the Ottomans they're different. Because Islam. It's not the most convincing of theses.

I only mentioned historical invasions of Europe in specific response to your claim that....

Odhinn wrote: »

..the "islamic world" was never deemed an existential threat to the 'Western world' until Osama Bin Laden and the attack on NYC.

But now you ask what is the difference between then and now. The difference is that there are no more crusaders, but there are still plenty of jihadis.
And Europeans no longer attempt to settle/colonise the muslim lands, but the reverse is not true.

Re LGBT rights in British India; Victorian era Britain was just as homophobic as any modern Muslim. I agree with your point on that.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

As the last few pages havent been discussing anything to do with the alt right, Im closing this thread for now.

If there are any new developments on the topic, PM me or another mod and we will see about reopening it.