Chimpy Chompy on 8/9/2017 at 11:37

---

I don't think wanting someone thrown out of a forum is quite equivalent to wanting someone else thrown out of a country.

Dia on 8/9/2017 at 12:30

---

You may (more like probably won't even bother to read it) find this article interesting. Gee, it seems radical Islamists don't actually have the market cornered when it comes to committing atrocities in the name of their God. (In a nutshell: 'How many people have died in the name of Christ, Christianity and Catholicism? VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH') (Subtitle: 'WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY') The '20th Century Church Atrocities' gave me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach; just sayin'.

(http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm)

And what Chimpy said.

heywood on 8/9/2017 at 13:32

---

This talk about banning Krush et al is not about his behavior at all. As far as I can see, the guy hasn't broken any forum rules, hasn't harassed anyone or called anyone names, hasn't filled up threads with annoying meme pics, etc. People are proposing to ban him because of his politics, not his behavior. Krush isn't being "called out". He is being branded.

Throwing someone out of a forum and throwing someone out of a country is different in scale, but the motivations behind doing it are the same in principle. The problem I have with Krush and some others is that they're ignoring the diversity of views and motivations among the Muslim population, and stereotyping them all as Islamists because that makes it easy to dismiss their views and declare them incompatible with Western society. But I see some of other posters here trying to do a similar thing with the right wing. Didn't you know they're all just closet Nazis and anything they say that sounds reasonable is actually coded with white supremacist dog whistles? ;) What's going on in both cases is using stereotypes and branding to dehumanize a group so you can feel justified in depriving them of rights. The talk of banning people from this forum is a microcosm of the wider debate of limiting speech and symbols that are incompatible with a politically correct world view.

Sulphur on 8/9/2017 at 14:22

---

No one's proposing that the entire right needs to be sucked out an airlock. That would be categorically stupid from any logical rationale. Disagree on things and talk about them reasonably regardless of where your political stance lies -- that's fine.

However: don't be a morally contemptible waste of skin whilst doing it. When you've got someone who's repeatedly called an entire ethnic group as murdering savages, and shows zero restraint or logic in their rationale besides xenophobia and racism, and it's continued for months on end with zero let up, that's very simply hate speech. We've done well to not raise much of a stink despite the ugliness of the views we've seen, but continuing to allow the toxicity does no one any favours (apart from the bigots and the racists), and it doesn't bode well for the atmosphere here. TTLG's rules call out that hate speech isn't entertained: so don't entertain it. It's not a morally complex situation.

Tony_Tarantula on 8/9/2017 at 14:24

---

Gah. I'm beginning to hate this topic because the amount of stupid that crops up from all sides is amazing. It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent people(literally everywhere, not just here) will drop all critical thinking and reasoning skills in favor of ascribing universal traits to all members of the group.

No, Muslim are not all a homogenous group of victims/terrorists. And now the causes of the current "terrorism" problems are far more complex than any click-bait analysis will tell people.

I'll add my take, but keep in mind that this resembles the truth in the same way that a child's drawing could be taken for an airplane: it's recognizeable as one for a distance, but nobody in their right mind would think that thing can actually fly.

Here's a few complicating key causes:

1) Western foreign policy: The actions of Western nations( and to some extent, China/Russia) have systematically destabilized many governments in the region. In cases where we haven't instituted weak regimes or directly facilitated terror and extremist groups(as the US did in Syria and Libya), they've taken out secular dictators who kept extremists in check. Many foreign policy/economic analysts said as much at the time and warned what was going to happen.

It doesn't help that the biggest US "allies" in the region make an active effort to keep their neighbors destabilized since that prevents any competing power blocs from emerging.

2) The political situation there: The single biggest problem in most traditional Islamic nations is that they do not have a coherent rule of law in the way that Westerners understand it. For example, any kind of permit usually requires a bribe to the local official, and there aren't any real checks on what local/officials warlords can do and they effectively treat people in their land like serfs. Coupled with a Theocratic, fuedal system it means that the best chances (and the closest thing to a meritocracy) that smart, aggressive, freethinkers have for improving their own status are joining a paramilitary organization or turning to crime. This is also a primary cause of the lack of education: no local leader in these countries has anything to gain by spreading literacy.

3) Islamists actually are correct in their belief that Western culture is a huge threat to their culture. Culturally, they have an extremely traditional background where they believe that family comes first, that women should stay in the household and take care of children/serve the man, that public expression of sexuality is wrong, and people should follow a highly respectable pattern of behavior in public. Similarly conservative cultures that live within the West have largely been destroyed by Western pop culture and they don't want to see the same thing happen to their faith and culture.