The ideal world in my mind is one where everyone is encouraged to do what is in their own best interests but that their pool of options is one that will lead to the benefit of others. I think that we already try to some extent to model society that way. Can't please everyone all the time and people can be fairly shortsighted about what's in the best interests of everyone but that's unavoidable.

Empathy is a joke, everyone talks but it's rarely a noteworthy counterweight to other human motivations. Even if it was, it's not well equipped to deal with complicated problems, it doesn't answer the question of how to maintain balance or what you should even do. I can empathise with a poor, single mother, I can say that's hard but what am I supposed to do about it?

It has its role, let's not put it on a pedestal like it will resolve all of the world's problems.

If your opinion changes when we have capital to redistribute then I don't get it, reparations will require capital to redistribute as well.

Your story is interesting but I still don't see any argument for why we should prioritise help/redistribution based on race. Reparations aren't even prioritising but selecting people for help based on their race. The only counterargument to this comes back to past injustices - which can't be undone and aren't a real factor now. People say they are a real factor only because they separate people based on race - if you don't do that, then what you've got is a lot of poor people - though for different reasons - dividing them by something practical like "where is help most urgently needed?" for instance is better than "this guy is black and that guy isn't, I mean come on.

We can talk all day about how economic redistribution might work and why it's necessary but it doesn't really explain the question of how you came to favour reparations over giving help based on need, ability to help and looking at how important the help being given is etc.

Granted we've got the okay to do some economic redistribution, If you or I listed the pros and cons of reparations and listed the same for economic redistribution without the racial element, you think the list for reparations would end up making it sound like the more practical and fair choice? Is there some other element?

You said you changed your mind, why is that?

I wasn't trying to say that you had only talked about your epistemological angle, anyway.

Yeah, honestly, instead of going down the rabbit hole of debating pernicious feminist intersectionality theories, I'm going to climb back out before it's too late. White privilege is about the dominance of the white perspective? Sure, go for it.

I'm gunna change my tune here, I suppose you can call white privilege whatever you want. Feminist rhetoric about each and every white advantage, I feel like it has been too complicated to have entered the mainstream yet.

I don't think white privilege is a term used to describe the differences in perspective or character between whites and coloured people. The term even has "privilege" in it and while what you have said, for the most part, is more or less true, I don't know how you figure that white privilege is a term that describes any of the things you've mentioned.

Only "sociological variant (1)" is on track, when we're talking about white privilege, we're talking about how white people are disproportionately enjoying a variety of social and economic benefits compared to other races in majority-white countries.

I think some people try to use the term as a statement of fact while others feel the term describes and represents a sick injustice.


Willful ignorance? Moral high ground? After saying what you said? You sure are bratty.

Quite an absurd response, black people need to be aware that cops will be more likely to shoot them and if they're not aware they are in mortal danger? I do hope you're not serious.

Whether you focus on racial differences - as you clearly do - or don't is a choice for anyone regardless of their skin colour. It is not possible to be ignorant of racial differences, our society makes sure of that but it is possible to choose not to focus on them. That you are white doesn't lessen the importance of how you focus on racial differences. It is the same.


I despise racism, I seek to reduce it.

Concepts like white privilege may seem correct in how they vindicate the oppressed and condemn the oppressors, it feels justified and right to put a spotlight on it. Unfairness is unavoidable but a focus on the unfairness leads to bitterness and resentment.

We have spoken about this in the past but I do not really see the way that people emphasise racial inequality as being productive, I think it exacerbates the problem and creates new problems. The actress mentioned in OP has offered nothing of value to anyone. White people become angry, coloured people become angry and we're encouraged to continue saying white people this and black people that. How does this help your black friends who want to be seen for who they are and not for their skin colour?

People can pity themselves and decry their race, pity others and decry past and current injustices. It doesn't help anyone. Anyway, glad to hear that you're open to change.

ISIS is a poor example that you keep going to as their narrative is characterised by a call to jihad - violence. I have said I do not approve of inciting violence and that banning that kind of speech is easy enough, in fact, it's fine for it to be criminalised.

I do not hyperbolise the situation of the West, freedom of speech is not something that should be taken for granted. Much like many will agree America is a rather flawed democracy - despite being the champion of democracy. The West will support free speech, the danger are "caveats" like hate speech which are misused. A dismantlement of free speech would certainly come under the guise of something like this and really, that's already happening. Most western countries do allow things like Islam to be criticised and etc but it's not hard to see that this is coming under threat, a problem, a concern, which wasn't there before.

I was talking about the government - to go through every context, each one needs to be dealt with individually. The government needs to protect free speech and that may include regulating businesses like Google and Facebook. The responsibilities and powers of privately owned venues like this forum are negotiated but ultimately decided by the owner, that is fine. I would look at the ramifications rather than just the action alone though. Some businesses are too influential and powerful to allow to censor their users for political gain.

Not really, it's only important if you focus on racial differences. If a person is just a person and not a white person or a black person then you can only address the problems of people. If a person experiences poverty, the why is only significant if it's a problem to be fixed. Past injustices cannot be fixed and it's not pragmatic to focus on them.

You can list all the problems you think black people are disproportionately affected by but in some sense, all that means is that fixing those problems will disproportionately advantage black people. It exacerbates racial tensions but helps no greater number of people. There are idealistic advantages to your way of thinking, satisfying some moral imperative that some people, maybe including yourself, believe exist.

I am a practical person, I can only see that your approach is less practical than mine and I'm swayed by little else. You seem to think I'm wrong by giving the example with the wheelchairs. Truthfully though, racism and tribalism still exist, with no thanks to attitudes like that of "white privilege" and not only would it de-escalate racial tensions to re-prioritise to fixing problems rather than counteracting past injustices but you'd have a better chance at convincing those who are unhappy with helping minorities for whatever reason. If you would simply rebrand the help you're trying to give to something everyone could get behind.

When I look at the West today, it seems to me that free speech shouldn't be taken for granted at all. Criticising religions like Islam is already hard in many Western countries and that's just one example.

Do not incite violence, don't compare a race of people to rodents and other extremes seem like easy bans. Why allow such rhetoric when it has no merit at all. It isn't that kind of stuff that I want to protect. Will people be allowed to criticise religions freely, will they be able to express their thoughts on gender honestly, will people be free to challenge the government on immigration policies. Some Western countries already consider some of those things to be hate speech.

There are many controversial topics where people escalate as a weapon. Outrage culture, I suppose. If what is necessary to win that battle is to call something hate speech, there won't be a moment's hesitation. If that's a path to controlling what people are allowed to say - and what they have to say. Then this will be done, is being done and as I said earlier, this is not a trivial concern. The very term "hate speech" implies that it's something that should be banned and if it was that simple then of course, there's no reason for debate. The problem is when things which aren't hateful or said with ill-intent are deemed hate speech because it's a convenient way to silence people.

True, it's a shame that inherent advantages exist, it wouldn't be that way in an ideal world. We don't live in that world, obviously. The concept of privilege, we've seen it create feelings of guilt, shame, resentment and anger. Privilege is separated across racial lines, thus dividing people across racial lines and increasing tribalistic sentiments. We could focus on being charitable, trying to reduce poverty for all, improving education and basic things like that but some people choose to instead focus on race instead.

You want people to see their race as a debt and as an entitlement? That kind of attitude only creates new problems - as if there aren't enough already.

This Rosanna Arquette has the worst approach possible and OP has it half right. We shouldn't feel pride but gratitude for our own blessings - whether meagre or better than average. We should feel disappointed that other people (not other races) are struggling and act on their behalf where possible and without going overboard. If we analyse the pros and cons of our actions, there is no justification for discussing privilege in racial terms.

You're a dangerous person, you want to ban hate speech - and criticism of religion and ideologies? Criticism is hate speech?

This is the heart of the issue about hate speech, I argue, that speaking about something can only serve to increase its prevalence, the opposite effect is very unlikely. So by uttering words of hate, you spread hate. However, many people do not simply wish to ban hateful words but characterise honest and fair criticism as hate. If you've spoken simply and you're not such a person, fine but there are many who want to abuse and weaponise this power to silence people by saying they're uttering hate. Who could be trusted with that power?

It is more dangerous for people to silence fair criticism by calling it hate speech than it is for hate speech to go unpunished.

Let me tell you that if you want to tell me you're coherent and I'm the problem, your clarification should at least look somewhat similar to your OP. Instead, you've just introduced several new ideas that aren't present in your OP. Also, "demanding is kind of like begging" but I'm insinuating my own meanings, aren't you just making up new meanings without explaining them?

Begging can entail demanding, declaring and defaming for you?

Besides that, I think you really need to make it clear what point you're trying to make. Points and arguments, not just claims. All I can say is that it's very hard to follow what you're saying here and I know that you think it's good but I think any discussion with you wouldn't go anywhere, I don't want to debate your many claims without knowing where it's going.

I'm describing political activism, not social disapproval which is a separate thing and doesn't lead to anything I listed. It's not just political activism either, there are laws against discrimination of all kinds and corresponding penalties for non-compliance. There have been many scandals across the west about people going too far in their efforts to reduce racism, sexism, anti-lgbt, anti-transgenderism and so on. Within universities and businesses, utilising social media, biased news reporting and interviewing, interference in primary and high school education, political candidates in many countries across the west promising and trying to reduce these types of discriminations.

OP asks us to reflect on whether begging is the right way to go about overcoming discrimination when this is the approach of literally nobody.

That being said, I'm not even sure why you quoted me and told me you're not aware of "countless" examples. If all you're trying to do is tell me you think I'm describing social disapproval, you're wrong, not sure how you got that idea.

It's just how things are and I said it only to show that "begging" is really not a response to racism/sexism. You want real talk but you respond to criticism by praising yourself, I'll leave you to it.

OP, I've really got no idea what you're talking about. You said that there's other forms of discrimination besides racism and then you said some forms of discrimination are less reviled than others. Then you compared "reverse racism" with other kinds of "reverse discrimination" which really, just makes no sense. Reverse racism is already a stupid term but reverse discrimination is actually even dumber. Racism is worse for the minority than the majority, okay.

Then you ask if begging for acceptance is the right way to go about overcoming discrimination. I don't know if you've been paying attention or not but right now, there is not much begging going on. If you are overtly racist or sexist, you will be personally attacked, your business may be attacked and you may even be physically attacked and we've seen countless examples of that.

Even on this forum, go ahead and be racist or sexist, see how much begging occurs. You'll be ridiculed, insulted and banned. Overall, I think you need to reformat your OP into something with a better structure and rethink how you've worded some things.

"The pure, unbridled truth" is what you want but you read people like Nietzsche? Philosophy is more like orientating yourself in an immaterial world than it is finding solid ground. Existentialism, nihilism and absurdism contain truths but they're mostly perspectives and interpretations. If you reevaluate your understanding of "the truth" then you will perhaps find some relief with a more realistic purpose.

Whether or not you value you it is rather inconsequential but whether the government/society acts like they value it or not has extensive implications. Particularly if it's only valued conditionally by metrics like class, wealth, skills and so on. I don't think suicide is something that is often considered without levels of depression or despair which prohibit clear thinking. The impact on the family and friends of the individual has to be taken into account as well. The government should be adopting the view that every citizen is important and worth saving.

Philosophy forums like this, in my view, tend to romanticise suicide as being a choice like any other that people should be allowed to make. They rationalise the action and then replace the motivations of suicidal people with their rationalisation and feel it's therefore defensible. The reality is that suicide and suicide attempts are rarely rational, people react stupidly to despair or they live with a compulsion to kill themselves due to a psychological proclivity for depression that they inherited genetically. Alternatively, they're overwhelmed or depressed for other reasons, it's not just a sensible choice based on the facts.

Here's an interesting article on that: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/many-suicides-are-based-on-an-impulsive-decision-2014-8?r=US&IR=T

Assisted suicide only really makes sense in exceptional circumstances usually involving unbearable medical conditions. Anything besides that and we're talking about something really quite dark here. You didn't say anything about medical conditions, just if the person "really wants it" and I think that's the problem. My assumption about anyone thinking about suicide is that they're not in their right mind, they're lost right now and we should offer help - not help kill them.

Morality cannot be discussed with just anyone, if you believe morality is subjective then there is no point in discussing it with those who believe it is objective and vice versa. If it is objective then it's either right or it's wrong and then you need common ground in your moral axioms and sources to determine how they should be applied to the topic. Without common ground, a discussion is pointless.

Alternatively, if you believe morality is discovered then whether it feels right or wrong intuitively is key, asking the right questions to bring the truest answers out of yourself and others.

If it's subjective then a discussion may be worthwhile but we're likely to get stuck disagreeing on our premises which aren't necessarily based on anything overly convincing.

Assisted suicide has circumstances so varied that one context gives an entirely different image to another. There's room for saying some situations it's okay and others it's not okay.

I think the answer to your question is simply that one's moral views do not always particularly value the authority of an individual to do whatever they want with themselves. Your OP seems to prioritise that and one other thing which is the reduction of suffering. That would be a dubious claim, however, I think it is pretty easy to prove that suicide causes suffering and leads to no happiness or relief, it just leads to nothingness.

I think a desire for suicide is usually driven by genetics or despair, and I don't recognise either as being good reasons for suicide. I don't support it without extreme circumstances.

I find myself at odds with how I think society should be, I myself don't really treasure the lives of strangers or think that others are special. If they are to die or not die, it can't matter to me, they aren't even known to me. However, I think that society is damned if it starts to judge that life can be anything but the most precious thing. Every person must be assumed to be essential and indisposable, it can't be based on something and the system shouldn't ever give up on us even if we give up on ourselves.

"True belief", "what do we really know?" and "beliefs about what one knows versus knowledge" are words that just muddy the water. I do think I understand what you are saying though. For me, I really know nothing when it comes to science, I cannot give proper explanations for many things, even basic things like gravity and electricity. It is a stretch to say that I "know" about these things, I have placed my faith in the consensus. It's closer to faith than knowledge.

My faith is not given thoughtlessly and I do not give all authoritative bodies my faith. Nor faith in whatever they say. Scepticism is maintained and I never really consider anything to be known, there are just degrees of certainty and degrees of confidence.

I would seek to understand the nature of the consensus, the ways in which it is successfully applied, the degrees to which I accept the logic behind it. I'm only forced to "know" when I need to evaluate an opinion that lacks consensus but if it lacks consensus then it's almost certainly lacking in the indisputable empirical proof as well.

There is always faith though, in at least, the senses and the way in which you experience the world at the most base level. If knowledge requires faith, true knowledge is just a distinction between what is being given faith like what you see versus what others saw. On a practical level, it's important but philosophically, I don't see where the line is drawn and I struggle to see any factor in where it would be drawn but personal opinion.

What matters = subjective, decided by the individual, the nuances of the argument also matter or don't matter, decided by the individual. Without individuals = "matters" incoherent.

Perfection is defined as a result of an evaluation - these evaluations are described differently by different people with different contexts.

Without anyone there to give evaluation there can be no perfection.

Solipsism isn't a question of being able to prove or disprove something because in order to entertain the concept you really need to refuse to take your experience at face value. There is nothing about this which leads to solipsism being a logical position because you've limited yourself to a position of complete ignorance as you believe your experience is not to be trusted.

There's no point in asking yourself anything, you can never know anything, you're like a blind, deaf, ethereal entity in a void of nothingness wondering what's out there.

Once you are required to be proven wrong, all kinds of madness ensues, solipsism is only one result and the only limitation is your imagination.

Wouldn't it be a moral dilemma when duty conflicts with anything? Thus creating the dilemma of whether to or not to perform the duty or obligation?

I'd still describe it as nihilism, at least in regard to the value of products of the human mind, which, in the case of something like "do no harm", are the elevation of a bit of evolutionary prudence (that only applies within "us" anyway, as opposed to "them") to some kind of dogma.

Your tone of blame implies that you think your view is superior to mine. — yupamiralda

I don't understand your comment, nihilism is an indiscriminate view and places all claims of objective meaning into the same category. That you separate the meaningful from the meaningless, caring about value and truth doesn't necessarily make what you're saying invalid or wrong but in your example, where you give your thoughts about "the value of products of the human mind" - this is not a nihilistic claim and most people hold beliefs contrary to others about the meaning and value of things.

I certainly think my view is superior to yours but that's just me playing out my nature as a human being and not necessarily indicative of anything. :grin:

So what your ideas are better than others, is basically what you're saying. Just as all others with their own idea of what matters, self-assuredly convinced you're the one making sense. You are not a nihilist, you're just someone who believes their interpretations are better than those of others.

Reproduction is the measure of success? Go reproduce then, grow old, and just before you die and with a smile on your face tell yourself "good job". Your nihilism is not nihilism though, Your opinion, however, puts you in the category with the majority of people, who are like you, not nihilists.

Subjective meaning clearly exists but the position that there is no objective meaning is correct. You have taken up an interpretation surrounding the importance of biology and evolutionary purpose, this is also lacking any truth, beyond the truth it has to you as a compelling idea.

The problem with men's rights and recently even women's rights is that in the 20th-century or in many developing countries today, women face unambiguous discrimination, lower status by design, they're thought to be less intelligent and capable and so on, many problems which are clearly hurting women. The basis for these beliefs usually don't hold up to scrutiny - the reasoning being either fundamentally incorrect or going against common sense and morality.

More recently, it is not as clear than women's right in the West are actually targetting unambiguously unfair things, quite the opposite. It's hard to understand the current feminist ideology and their views are very controversial.

There are issues which impact men disproportionally or even biases against men such as in education or law. I've made a thread on this forum before discussing why empathy is not a useful tool for understanding, we don't need men who think they can empathise with other men to find solutions for problems. Fact-based decision making, including both nurture AND nature influences and factors, aimed at reducing problems for both men and women wherever they appear doesn't really seem to require a men's rights group.

The concern here is that the social constructionists think men are raised poorly, the feminists think successful men are tyrannical, misogynistic and toxic and society, in general, is more sympathetic to women's problems than men's problems. So what is needed before fact-based decision making is a political movement that calls for more attention to be placed on the various issues that men face.

Provide evidence and fair analysis rather than pathological interpretations and you'll be treated to a fair audience. That's what I would say to anyone who wasn't so far gone as to say Australia has a rape culture, I don't want to hear anymore out of you. I'm giving Banno every chance to start making sense, I've given that chance to everyone who has argued with me in this thread.


Okay... I didn't defend Christianity or make any comments about it, I just pointed out Banno is not being truthful when he said he condemned and never took part in the comparisons between Islam and Christianity/The West.


Labels? I'm describing your interpretations and pathology, which has been demonstrated in this thread. What do you want me to add to your comments? There are troubled kids at school, criminals who work in different industries and citizens of nations do bad things.

You didn't try to demonstrate a connection between Morrison and the shooter, you didn't try to explain why you thought the culture or the "experiences" should be blamed for what the shooter did. You failed to show that the shooter isn't an "other" and really, that's the biggest claim of all in my opinion. He's done something extraordinarily unusual and it's been condemned across the board in Australia but to you, he's what, what you could have been?

I think that one person, regardless of how bad of an apple he is, shouldn't poison our opinions of the bunch. Perhaps he never would have committed this crime if there wasn't any anti-Islamic sentiment in Australia but that doesn't mean we should condemn anti-Islamic sentiment for that reason. Just like how our society frowns upon sex offenders but that frowning upon them and murdering them, different things, do you see the difference?

Individuals need to take responsibility for their crimes and instead you are using an individual's crimes to attack anti-Islamic sentiment and although I don't know what form that takes right now from you, I do think there are valid concerns about Islam and I don't want any of them to be silenced because of the actions of a homicidal maniac and the low-quality ideas he had.

This post you're proud of does exactly what I said it does, illogical nonsense that assumes the problem with the shooter for pathological reasons.

Othering.

They are not us. We don't do this shit.

That's the PM's excuse for Australia producing a nationalistic terrorist.

And so he does not have to admit his culpability in the crime, despite years of presenting the sort of thing found in the OP here.

The Christchurch terrorist was one of us. He was born in a town a few tens of kilometres away from my home town. He experiences the same sorts of things as we experienced. He chose to act based on those experiences. And what he did was appalling.

If we deny that he was Australian. we lose an opportunity to address the issues that caused him to make his choice. — Banno

Oh, and also, our PM, Scott Morrison, is a shitbag enabler who is most certainly culpable - though not alone - for fostering the kind of environment in which the shooter became who he is. And of course Australia is riven with all kind of systemic and cultural issues - rape, domestic violence, murderous treatment of minorities, immigrants, and the poor, and all the rest of it. Why is it so horrifying for you that this might be the case? — StreetlightX

The shooter is an Australian, what you interpret that to mean is without evidence, unreasonable nonsense. You look to find blame in his Australianness for the crime, you look for fault in the mainstream culture. Is there a case to be made? Probably not but I haven't seen one if it does exist. It doesn't matter for you that everyday Australians find murder abhorrent or the murder abhorrent. Just like StreetlightX who I think is actually worse than you, which is an unexpected twist.

Don't compare a prejudice against women to rape, one might also again bring into question this inherent claim of these things being solely nurtured, given that misogynist views exist worldwide without exception. Do you agree with StreetlightX that Australia has a rape culture?

I explicitly rejected the pissing competition even as it began. — Banno

No, you joined in. You started arguing with OP about how Christianity is a morally bankrupt religion, you started your own little "pissing contest" on the side. I am surprised you are even saying now that you wish to come to an agreement that there's no such thing as Christian morality, given it makes no sense with what you've said earlier in this thread.

This is the thing with talking to people about the past, you've got your own perspective about what you've written and you've perhaps got an understanding of yourself as a certain type of person. This is a bit more of a comical example because I can actually show that you're on the wrong side of this. I'm happy for you to start taking your comments back, I want you to do that in fact.

Of course, OP is taking everything out of context and blaming Islam, you can see many things he lists occurring in countries that aren't even majority Muslim and of course, countries are affected by more than just their religious persuasion. Interpretations of Islam are different in different places and for different people but this "othering" concept is still stupid. Everyone is an "other", I am sure a better way of thinking and a better term to describe a similar problem is more appropriate.

It's a piece of rhetoric that ought leave one cold. As if there ought not be a political reaction to a tragedy such as a mass shooting. — Banno

I'm completely in favour of the banning of assault rifles, wasn't aware that NZ even allowed them to be owned legally lol. I am not saying every reaction which requires political change is utilising the tragedy politically. I think that gun control is a bit of an unfortunate example because we don't need to see them killing people to know that they are going to be used for that. The AR is completely absurd because of its destructive power and how out of place it would be for defending a home with an AR or having a hobby of shooting things with an AR. Nonetheless, we've got a clear connection.

Trying to say the political leader of a country is culpable for mass murder and using the kinds of arguments that StreetlightX and you employed (ot lack of arguments for you) crosses a line. The interpretations you guys are utilising to blame the Australian PM and Australian culture are pathological as far as I am concerned. I put it on the same level as saying Australia has a rape culture. You've got a single person from Australia committing a crime and for you, that is sufficient to blame the entire country, the region he came from and its leader as parts of the "problem" of one person being an extremist psychopath.

Pathological to the extreme, taking things to mean what you want them to mean in order to make the arguments you wanted to make. Gun control has a serious and obvious causal relationship with mass shootings while the PM using anti-Islamic sentiment for votes, "dog whistling" and whatever else cannot be now described as "mass murder causing behaviour" because one guy who may or may not have ever given a shit about anything the PM did or said, murdered the same group of people that the PM has utilised for political purposes or "attacked".

Now if you had said that people ought be judged for what they do, we might find agreement. — Banno

This is a philosophy forum, I judge people on what they believe all the time and I don't see a problem with it. If someone told you they hate homosexuals and they think it's disgusting and immoral would you brush that off as nothing? Would it matter if they were Muslim and based their views on their interpretation of Islam or an atheist who hated homosexuals for some other reason? I imagine not and at least for me, certainly, it doesn't matter.

There was a thread on this, No?

What is it? — Banno

That which is interpretatively relevant is used to determine what something means. That meaning is used as evidence in arguments.

To even begin to compare the West to Islam, how do we evaluate them? For Streetlight X, the West has caused a lot of problems historically for the middle east with their imperialism and so, we cannot say the West has moral superiority. The West doesn't just have problems historically and it has way more than just that, it has problems now and you can take any one or many of those things in isolation and say "this means the West isn't morally superior to Islam". You can also take the goods things about the West and say "this means the West is morally superior" and vice versa for Islam.

Of course, none of these perspectives are balanced, they're ignoring mountains of facts and interpretations to arrive at an answer. It's something that you and Streetlight X do constantly and continually arrive at similar conclusions which are detrimental to Western countries and culture (so far this hasn't been to the benefit of Islam but that's irrelevant) while OP does the same for Islam. The result can only be described as a pathological way of looking at the world.

Slightly off-topic but I'm glad to see this thread.

One of your mods thinks Australia has a rape culture, another thinks the modern extreme left is benign. I thought perhaps I was dealing with some kind of extreme left-wing forum owner but I don't know if someone like that could make a thread like this, it seems that way to me. I'm glad to see this forum's owner is more balanced than that.

I've already had multiple arguments on this thread about interpreting what politicians mean, it's not black and white and amateur thinkers believe their interpretations need to be contended with like facts. Even interpreting what I mean is a struggle for those who are overly sensitive about this topic. Islam gets special treatment from a lot of people, to protect and demonize, it isn't treated for what it is.

What is absolutely clear to me is that Islam can be a religion of peace and charity, promoting good values IF you meet the person who interprets Islam to be that way. That is not what Islam is but it is what Islam can be (and thus is for that person) and when Islam is fine then it's fine. Take away Islam, forget the reasoning for their beliefs and if their beliefs are within the realms of acceptability in Western society then we're 99% of the way to not caring about this person's Islam.

Assimilation means intermingling, shared language, shared core values, integration into workforce and communities. If you moved to Saudi Arabia and moved into a Dutch-neighbourhood and never learned proper Arabic or shared any values with the people living there, yeah, you're not even part of the country as far as I'm concerned.

I don't care about music or what you eat, this is where context is important because there's no value in overexaggerating how similar "Australians" and then contrasting it to Muslims. I watch anime, listen to all kinds of music but dislike generic Western music, most of my hobbies are not well regarded such as even philosophy and I disagree with people politically on a far more profound level than I disagree with peaceful interpretations of Islam.

Small cultural conclaves seem harmless but once they become large enough to be a political force and cause social problems, the lack of assimilation starts to show itself as a serious problem. Many countries in Europe have let in too many Muslims with no attempts to even look at their interpretation of Islam or assimilate them. I don't care that it's nihilistic and relativistic to a fault and just pretty careless to say they belong in the country when there's literally no assimilation going on, it's just entirely unpragmatic.

The problem specifically with Islam is that it's clear that either the religion or the culture of many Islamic countries allows for or encourages interpretations of Islam which are not within the realms of acceptability for Western values. Refugees should be helped but by trying to figure out solutions for the countries they lived in and seeing how the West can assist there. There are lots of poor and unfortunate people across the world and most of them don't carry the same religious and cultural risks as Muslims but of course, the solution to the world's problems isn't getting 0.0001% of them into Western countries.

The Australian government's job is to look after the Australian people and Australian interests and I don't see how the irresponsible acts of the German and Sweden governments and others can be explained from that perspective. The purpose of immigration shouldn't be to save people, foreign aid and being a helpful global community is important and that's where the focus should be.

As for Sharia law, if you just remove the fact that there's this thing called Sharia law and get rid of Islam. Look at what is actually being believed and forgetting why and then asking, is this something I want in the country or not. As far as I am concerned, most of Sharia law is absolutely ridiculous, anti-science, misogynistic, intolerant, 10th-century-logic nonsense and even if you decide you want to live like that, I don't see why it should be allowed. If you somehow are ignoring every bad aspect of Sharia law then I suppose I won't even ever know you follow it. It comes down to what the actual beliefs are and not the name of "Sharia law".

It is distinct in some ways obviously, what that should mean is another thing entirely. Muslims living abroad is another matter than Muslims living here now and "underlying notions" too vague to take at face value.

I've heard the anti-Muslim immigration and to be honest, I support it, I don't think the West has been even remotely responsible with it so far. It's a very difficult situation. I would not agree with treating Australian-Muslims differently based on their religion but here's the problem with rhetoric in politics, attacks on individuals and beliefs are interpreted as assaults on the group.

Rooting out Islam extremist, preventing terrorism, handling immigration responsibly and with the intention of assimilation, criticising aspects of Islam like sharia law and many negative interpretations. All that and more is valid and necessary and if it makes Muslims feel like they don't belong here or non-Muslims feel that Muslims don't belong here then the solution can't come from failing to do those aforementioned things and much more, which is all necessary.

It probably happened that the liberal party has overstepped what was necessary or failed to do that which was necessary to protect and integrate Australian-Muslims. I do not think it is as bad as you say.

Morrison, Dutton, the Liberal party, et al, have been terrible with respect to the postion of Muslims in the Australian community. Their rhetoric and understanding of Muslim has been postioning them as an outsider and a threat for years. — TheWillowOfDarkness

What exactly are you referring to?

You're naive in the extreme if you think a person's beliefs and ways of life are not intimately constitutive of who they are, and that comments on the former do not in anyway bear on the latter. — StreetlightX

Okay, but all the same, it's your own personal interpretation that it "bears on the latter" and you've interpreted how it does that for them and as usual in an uncharitable way. I disagree with the beliefs of many people but I don't use that as a basis to claim superiority over them. I disagree with the way of life of many people but I don't think those people are inferior to me. You are just being unreasonable to hurt those you disagree with, as usual.

Correct, I am condemning the murder of 50 people and the conditions which lead to it, as should anyone who isn't a complete wanker. Which includes enablers like Morrison and his dog whistling fuckery. But of course, this isn't a conversation you're capable of having, having proudly flaunted your deliberate ignorance of politics, as though this was not a mark of deep shame. What you say about Morrison has no standing. You kicked your own stool away from yourself. — StreetlightX

I'm satisfied that I know enough to vote my values, what's your list of great accomplishments? Decrying rape culture in Australia and showing up at a few far left rallies? I'm glad you're condemning the massacre, good on you, gold star. Stop using it politically and talking about conditions and causes without sufficient (or any) evidence.

You know what, you actually think there's a rape culture in Australia, I am done wasting my time talking to you. Fxdrake or whatever his name is, another mod on this forum is a similarly poor thinker who utilises unreasonable, hostile interpretations for political leverage, just like you. I can't help but think there is an explanation but maybe it's just a coincidence.

Not at all. All religion should get fucked as far as I'm concerned, including Islam. The problem with the OP isn't that it 'has problems with a culture and religion'; it's that it conceptualizes them in ways so thin and shallow as to be not only useless but actively harmful. Anyone who wants to talk about religion and culture without at the same time talking economics, politics, and social conditions is a priori ruled out of having anything meaningful whatsoever to say. The OP presents a shallow story for piddling minds. — StreetlightX

Well, at least we agree on something.

You're the worst of the lot. Have you ever made a post on this forum which wasn't about racism, sexism or anti-Islamic sentiment?


Rape is a part of Australian culture? :lol:

The OP is exactly like 'my list'. It's an effort to encourage a cultural and religious pissing contest where a full one sixth of the human population is declared inferior — StreetlightX

Your interpretations are charming as always, isn't he arguing it's the religion and culture which is inferior and not every practitioner?

Even if Morrison was saying or encouraging others to say or think that Islam is an inferior culture and religion (isn't this covered by "disliking Islam" how did I get lambasted for that?) he still isn't culpable for an environment which creates mass murderers. He didn't incite violence, he didn't condone violence and you and others like you are just utilising the tragedy to increase the punch of the condemning of a practice you don't like.

Do I need to keep quiet any problems I have with any culture and religion? Banno said Christianity was a morally bankrupt religion while simultaneously blaming anti-Islamic sentiment for the Christchurch massacre, do you at least see the hypocrisy in that?

I don't even know what to say before I start dealing with your post let's look back at how we got here.

Othering.

They are not us. We don't do this shit.

That's the PM's excuse for Australia producing a nationalistic terrorist.

And so he does not have to admit his culpability in the crime, despite years of presenting the sort of thing found in the OP here. — Banno

You can't talk to me about how ignorant I am for not assuming your dislike of Morrison was caused by your little list when the origin of this conversation came from a post which is explicitly saying the problem with Morrison is similar to what's in OP, which is clearly nothing like your list and can be generally summarised as anti-Islamic sentiment.

You backed Banno's claim and without adding any nuance to the differences between his perspective and your own.

Oh, and also, our PM, Scott Morrison, is a shitbag enabler who is most certainly culpable - though not alone - for fostering the kind of environment in which the shooter became who he is — StreetlightX

But okay, I am not interested in a discussion on Morrison, you are right that I am ignorant about politics, mainly because I don't care much about it.

My position is that Australia is riven with all kind of systemic and cultural issues such as rape, domestic violence, murderous treatment of minorities and immigrants and all the rest of it. Your word salad of a translation of this is senseless and doesn't even get the subject of the sentence right (hint: it's 'Australia'), let alone anything else. Get the grammar right and maybe there's a discussion to be had. — StreetlightX

What do you think the relationship between Australian culture and rape/domestic violence is?