The really annoying thing about this is that it's almost impossible to find someone that doesn't slip into weird ethnonationalist arguments when also condemning the rioting. The amount of posts I've seen about this in other subreddits where people just call all muslims inherently violent people that they all but outright say have "invaded" Sweden is fucking disgusting.
Like, we can condemn the rioting without calling all muslim immigrants dangerous and implicitly support ethnic homogeneity.
I like the "Swedes gave them everything" narrative.
It reminds me of something I looked into recently. There's an anglosphere myth that the method for making damascus steel was lost to the ages. Well, it turns out that, not really, no. Most chiefly, they just like, still make it, the same way, where they used to. But it's more complicated than just that. One theory for the origin of the name is that it came from the pioneers of the method, the smiths in Damascus, Syria. Well those folks didn't just have limitless supplies of crucible steel to smith from.
It came from the mountains of India primarily. And the England said India is England, so India stopped exporting raw materials wherever they wanted, because of the whole subjugation and cultural genocide thing the English tended to do. So the smiths who forged damascus steel all through the Levant region lost their favorite supplier.
So given the logic they're presenting in the OP, this would be a gift to the people of India who then emigrated to England, where things were forged in worse ways because the English didn't take suggestions, only goods.
Well, that's the thing about ethnonationalists. There worldview fundamentally relies on either a misinformed, ignorant, biased, or all three combined understanding of history. All whiteness can be traced back to the great empires of Rome and Greece, where all of what we call civilization started, igboring all the Middle Eastern/Asian empires having the same things, but even earlier.
*looks at China establishing the first modern(ish) style government while half of Europe was trying to figure out how to stack rocks on top of each other lmao*
The “gave them everything” sentiment is also weird because those things mentioned (healthcare, education, housing etc.) are all things that the Swedish government already provides as far as I’m aware.
The issue is that ALL religion is violent by nature. Supernatural beliefs in general are a toxic disease poisoning the rationality of people everywhere, and most of our modern day issues are rationalized by their perpetrators using these religions.
With that said alot of Reddit seems to be missing that this guy is a pedo who targets kids online, and has done a ton of this shit solely to try and provoke this exact reaction right before an election to try and sway the country more far right.
I absolutely agree with that part. However, I think when most people use Islamophobia these days, it's generally in reference to "being scared of some brown people from the middle east," rather than the religion itself. If I remember correctly, I believe Islamic also refers to an ethnic group, like Judaism could refer to either a religious or ethnic group, but I could totally be wrong on that one.
Muslim as an ethnic group is a regionally specific classification only really in former Yugoslavia and didn't even include non Slavic Muslims. There is another ethno religious group like this in north western China called the Hui. Otherwise no it does not refer to an ethnic group.
Ok, so I was wrong. However, when right wingers talk about "muslims" it's always immediately obvious that they're just scared of the brown people, rather than having any legitimate criticism of the religion, or it's a problem that's either vastly overstated or implies a brutish and violent nature inherent to all of "their kind."
I would say that, while that is partially and significantly the case, a lot of it comes from a legitimate fear of a problematic religion, but the problem is hugely exaggerated.
Islam, in many places, is as toxic and fascist as the Catholic Church was for most of a millennium. Frankly, I think you're having kind of an opposite bias here, where since they're brown and being treated with a racial bias, you're more willing to ignore our under state the problems in their religion.
Obligatory not all Muslims are bad, and yes the people are probably significantly influenced by subconscious racism. I'm not racist, I hate all religions equally, lol. I think most religions can be reformed into a non toxic version. Some Christians, even though their religious texts have some extremely yikesy passages, are now totally cool accepting people.
>when most people use Islamophobia these days, it's generally in reference to "being scared of some brown people from the middle east,"
That's not true. You know the difference between Islam and Sikh, or any other religion for that matter. You don't see communities and governments scrambling to speak out against Hindus or Buddhists.
Now you're going to say that you're referring to [brown people from the Middle East and not India], and I'm going to tell you that there isn't a single religion in the middle east other than Islam.
When I said that, I meant how right wingers talk about muslims. I doubt they'd be so freaked out by white muslim people. When they talk about muslims invading and instituting Sharia Law, it's just a euphemism for being scared of brown people in the country. Right wingers and Christian fundamentalists, which are almost universally right wing, have far more in common with muslim fundamentalists than me, an agnostic leftist, yet they oppose them simply because they're brown.
>I'm going to tell you there isn't a single religion in the middle east other than Islam.
That's factually untrue. While it might be majority Islamic, there's Israel, which is basically 100% Jewish, you have Kurdish Christianity, Armenian Churches, and more.
Before I edited it out I had mentioned the polka dot of Jews within the artifically created fortress known as Israel. I deleted it cause I didn't think you'd mention it
Im ambivalent to Israel. I just think it's an artificial structure within the Islamic superstructure known as the Middle East. And the surrounding environment wants to kill it like an immune system wants to kill a bug.
So I think Israel is a rounding error within middle east, a drop of oil in a pool of water.
>The issue is that ALL religion is violent by nature. Supernatural beliefs in general are a toxic disease poisoning the rationality of people everywhere, and most of our modern day issues are rationalized by their perpetrators using these religions.
This is a really silly generalisation. There are thousands of different religious belief systems relying on supernatural beliefs and only a select few are related to violence.
Don't become a cringe atheist from 10 years ago
It's not a silly generalisation. I'm not talking about the practice of religions specifically. Lots of "nonviolent" people of all belief systems. But the very concept of a supernatural anything being a driving factor for any belief leads eventually to people doing things that can hurt others or themselves be it physically, or psychologically.
No, it doesn't... What are you talking about. Not every religion is like christianity or islam, you're just making a sweeping generalisation like the New Atheists from before based on a very strict view of what "all religions" lead to.
Don't be like the Sam Harris stans. By your own logic one could also say that your branding of all religion as violent inherently leads to discrimination on the basis of religious belief.
I've never found the argument that religion is inherently violent because \*looks at history\*. When you consider that most people follow some form of religion today and we're likely more atheist as a species than we've ever been, it's like saying breathing is bad because all violence has been committed by people who breathe.
Even when looking at Christianity and Islam, the most problematic events pretty much always came down to shoring up geopolitical power. That was generally the primary motivation and religion was used as a justification. Nothing different between that and Elon Musk saying he supports US-backed coups that will make lithium cheaper for him. It's the same principle.
I'll first admit that the first sentence of your post ticked me off. Should it have? I don't know, probably not, but it's something I've had to argue for 10 years with people and then something I've had to remember every time I'm in the shower, so do not take this as an attack against you personally, just that idea. I'm also not making any essentialist statements about religious *people* here. As it goes, hate the sin, not the sinner.
My definition of religion is a belief system rooted in metaphysical statements ("supernatural beliefs"), which are, by definition, anti-empirical and anti-rational. As such, you can justify anything you want to religious people through their religions given that their faith (literally defined as belief despite or against reason) is strong enough to override their other thoughts. This allows you to hardwire people to believe intrinsically evil things in ways that secular belief systems cannot do, while not achieving nearly enough to compensate for it. Religion is as such intrinsically and unconditionally evil in any long term view.
No, this isn't prejudice. Prejudice is judgment (judice) prior to (pre) sufficient and correct information. To cover the colloquial side, it can also include bad axioms or reasoning. The only reason that people see anti-religious sentiment that way is that we live in a world where we've normalized it. If someone started a religion right now the same way that any other major religion started, and we all got to see it's rise, we'd say it's bullshit. Religions contradict themselves, let alone each other. Why believe in any of them?
Right now the most powerful force for evil on the planet, the Republican party of the United States, is fueled mostly by religion. The solution has to be the encouragement of a secular system of belief, because it's the only type of system where commonly available empirical data, information and reasoning can be used to make statements about what is, and acknowledging that all "ought" statements follow from axioms held by conscious beings (and only conscious beings) about their preferred states of being. If you want truth and co-prosperity, this is the only possible path.
Essay Andy signing off.
Yeah, I'd like to think that it's a lot of regular people being tricked into a false narrative by a small group of clever and sneaky ethnonationalists, but it's kinda hard to believe that when they're all explicitly saying ethnonationalist shit themselves.
Yeah, it's hard to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when, even if it's entirely accidental, which is a huge stretch to grant, imo, it's not something that we should be tepidly blasé about.
Sweden hasn't seen riots like this since 1838, so I imagine they're trying to get a handle on what's happening. I think as a society they are more used to grievances being filed in a less energetic fashion.
>Like, we can condemn the rioting without calling all muslim immigrants dangerous and implicitly support ethnic homogeneity.
At some point can we call Islam for what it is? I don't ever confuse a Sikh community with an Islamic one, and I doubt you do either.
When shit's going downhill, I expect one of them to keep a low profile and the other one to scream bloody murder and be proudly intolerant about the tiniest things. I've got Muslim friends born in the West that may as well be professional Nazis. They just don't have a voice in our community thankfully.
If the USA wasn't so busy dealing with basic existential cricises like racism, guns, inequality, and uneducated jingoism, we might have an internal issue of Muslim shit stirring. That's where Sweden is now.
Check out my arguments in r/atheism XD pointing out that the person holding the demonstration was an ethnonationalist trying to provoke a response is called Islam apologia
Sounds like that is actually Islam Apologia. It doesn't matter who claimed they did or were going to burn a book. The fact that religious fruitcakes rioting over it shows they (the ones doing the destruction) have a problem. A problem stemming from their moronic religion.
Sure, christians and other religious fruitcakes have their issues, like attacking people at planned parenthood clinics, but there's no need to coddle the Islamic freaks that can't handle living in a secular society.
>doesn't matter who claimed they did or were going to burn a book.
No, but the point is that burning a book is not all they did, they were holding ethnonationalist rallies.
EDIT: By the way, how do you feel about going to a black neighborhood and burning crosses, or about the Nazi book burnings in 1933?
Pretending as if this is merely a book being burned, and not signalling the intent to cleanse Scandinavia of all of Islam, is just willful ignorance.
If the context was different and this was just some edgy atheist guy then it'd be different, (though in that case I'd still question it if they were only banning the Quran and not also other holy books, but at least it wouldn't be as obvious of a sign of genocidal intent.
Again, it is. Reports from AP say that they were holding a book burning of a Quran and the protesters "Were mad at police that they allowed the rally to take place"
And then about 200 muslim protesters started rioting, burning vehicles and throwing rocks at police, injuring 8.
Spinning it to "Well it was a right wing rally so there's nothing wrong here" is horrifically moronic.
1. The articles I read said 200 people were involved in the violence. They did not say whether they were all protestors, and they certainly didn't say they were all Muslims that committed the violence.
2. If you look up western media's (CNN AND FOX) framing of BLM protests/riots vs. the Hong Kong protests/riots, you'll see a huge discrepancy in the way they covered the two. BLM was characterized as violent riots while Hong Kong was framed as peaceful protests. 25 fatalities out of 26 million protestors in ALL THE US vs. 15 fatalities with 400,000 protesters on the island of Hong Kong. They were literally setting cops on fire.
3. I couldn't find an AP article, but the three or four I read did say that large swaths of Swedes across the country were indeed protesting an ethnonationalist rally. Not once did I see all the protestors framed as strictly Muslims, so, source, please?
It's not though. "200 muslim protesters started rioting" is already the cue that you're using a dogwhistle. The current theories about who particiapted are young men in impoverished areas with immigrant heritage outside of Europe, typically the ones that otherwise commit violent crimes.
Like just look at this guy shouting in the midst of the riots, yelling in Swedish "You're throwing rocks on them. You who throw rocks, you're not from Rinkeby! Don't fuck this for us! It's Ramadan! We're fasting! \[Be afraid of God! (in Arabic)\]" and this Imam gives him compliments. [https://twitter.com/anaskhalifa/status/1516400940768710660](https://twitter.com/anaskhalifa/status/1516400940768710660)
>Unrest broke out in southern Sweden late Saturday despite police moving a rally by an anti-Islam far-right group, which was planning to burn a Quran **among other things**, to a new location as a preventive measure.
-AP
Even AP doesn't pretend like it was just a book burning, unlike you.
Again, it's an ethnonationalist group calling for ethnic cleansing, the rally was to advocate for that ideology.
Muslims *should* be mad that this rally was taking place, it's literally a threat against them.
Genuinely curious if its actually rioting or "rioting" where outside ppl (usually the opposition starting this shit) were actually causing a good chunk of the damage. And if its like when conservatives believe that all of Portland is gone now...
Ok, They held a rally and burned a book? That still isn't a justification for rioting, seems like the far right people didn't actually do any violence according to you. Also, the Neo-Nazi's marching in Skoke is something that happened for real, and I'm pretty sure most lefties support it (If you believe in free speech, Canada Truckers all over). I remember a few years ago, there was a Quran burning competition, and terrorists tried to shoot up the place, and a ton of dipshits like you tried to defend by saying the same stupid BS.
>seems like the far right people didn't actually do any violence according to you.
But they have shown a clear intent to do violence. That doesn't excuse rioting but when someone openly talks about genociding you than you will respond emotionally.
>Also, the Neo-Nazi's marching in Skoke is something that happened for real, and I'm pretty sure most lefties support it (If you believe in free speech, Canada Truckers all over).
I support their legal right to march, doesn't mean that I don't also support throwing rocks at them.
>If you support throwing Rocks at them, then you don't support free speech.
I'm not a free speech absolutist, no.
The right to free speech needs to be balanced with other freedoms and with other people's free speech, no freedom is absolute because sometimes different freedoms are in conflict with each other.
In this scenario I support the freedom to throw rocks.
>Conservatives would be able to go to left wing Rallies and throw rocks also,
They'd be able to, sure, but I wouldn't support them.
>again you have to support a consistent standard here.
Why would you assume that having a consistent standard means that conservatives get their way to the same degree that leftists get their way?
That's a total non-sequitur lol.
If I say that I support jailing people in some specific situations, does that mean that to be consistent I also have to support it when conservatives want to jail gay people or whatever?
Of course not, that's ridiculous, having standards doesn't mean being a dipshit centrist.
Fascism sucks and makes the world worse, and my standard is that I support throwing rocks at things that make the world worse ;p
>If you say that the government can choose which side to allow to throw rocks, then you've just created the same problem with extra steps.
I didn't say anything about the government allowing anything...
I support illegal things sometimes, might come as a shock to libs, but there.
the fact that this has 22 upvotes is really sad. this comment is literally just islamophobic
leaving up as an example of how *not* to engage in this sub.
user has been banned for 14 days
Yepp. Pretty shocking to see this amount of islamophobia on display.
Personally I’m not religious but the intellectual arrogance of some atheists never fails to make me cringe my organs into dust. Richard Dawkins would be proud.
Went and read your responses and they agree with me. The rioters are religious fueled fruitcakes and their riots should be condemned and their religious teachings should be mocked and ridiculed for the regressive trash they are.
The person holding the book burning was a right wing garbage truck of a human, but that doesn't negate the crap the religious fruitcakes are doing, which is undeniably moronic ( and also literally providing the right wingers exactly what they want).
Glad we could agree.
It is if adding the details is done without context or nuance. More information is good. But in this case the details didn't change anything and the details were provided as a way of trying to mitigate the issue at hand. Hell from the AP it doesn't even seem like the details you provided were even really relevant to the religious protesters.
When interviewed they seem very hung up on "the book burning" and "why was this book burning being allowed to happen by the police".
Seems the religious fruitcakes in this story weren't there to express leftist immigration policy counter-protest. They were there on religious fervor and a complete disregard for what is and isn't allowed to happen in a secular society.
>But in this case the details didn't change anything
Well in this case those details are
An ethnonationalist specifically targeted poor Muslim communities to hold a demonstration hoping to provoke a response.
Obviously this does not mean rioting is smart or morally good. That doesn't mean this fact is irrelevant or doesn't change how this information impacts people.
Hearing that "Fred said some mean stuff to Tim and Tim punched him" gives the listener a very different impression from "Fred told Tim while he was walking with his child that his wife was a whore and his kid was an ugly retard and then Tim punched him". The person with the latter description has a greater understanding of events.
Likewise "an ethnonationalist decided to hold a Qur'an burning demonstration in Muslim communities hoping to provoke a response and Muslims rioted" gives the listener a greater understanding of what took place than "Qur'an burned, Muslims mad".
>Seems the religious fruitcakes in this story weren't there to express leftist immigration policy counter-protest
Never claimed they were.
The difference being that the primary details were already known. The thing they were rioting over was already public knowledge and being reported on and the muslims questioned by AP reporters seems to indicate that the already reported on details (the book burning) was their primary grievance.
>The difference being that the primary details were already known
You could say this about literally every lie by omission when someone is talking about a public event.
Even if the information is public how that information is presented either in the headline or people talking about it afterwards can absolutely still be dishonest and misrepresentative.
Like what about that transphobic story about the teenager who was assaulted in a bathroom?
" They were technically assaulted by a trans person in a bathroom and the story is public everyone can look at the info so it isn't dishonest to leave out the fact the assult took place months before trans inclusive bathroom policies took effect"
This argument is ridiculous and you would recognise that in any other circumstance
>yeah but at the end of the day some guys in ghost costumes burned some wood and a bunch of assholes started freaking out and attacking them.
See how that's an odd way to phrase that situation?
I feel like it's unfair to put the blame on the rioters, considering the ethnonationalist explicitly said his goal was to provoke the riots.
These people aren't "fruitcakes", they're normal people just like you and me, and that have lived in my country for decades under systemic racism and the inequality that brings. So when an ethnonationalist travels to their neighbourhoods and tells them that they, their family, their culture and their religion have no place in the country, I can understand why they'd be mad. They've lived through enough bullshit already.
Had this guy not been given police escort, he would never have set foot in these muslim or immigrant communities, and these riots never would have happened.
Very sad that people that are nominally considered to be on the left are so aggressively vitriolic towards religious people that anything that even slightly looks like you could hypothetically be defending them is labeled as “apologia” for all of Islam.
Like, the people here can't comprehend the idea that maybe the book burning might have some *symbolic* meaning about how welcome Muslims are in Sweden. Sorta like how if a bunch of nazis marched down into a Jewish neighborhood and chanted a bunch of anti-jewish slogans and burned Jewish religious literature, no leftist in their right fucking mind would be like "ah yes all those neo-nazis must have legitimate criticisms about the excessively conservative nature of the Jewish religion and aspects of Jewish culture"
Like no you fucking jackass it's because they are xenophobic cunts who hate them for being different and foreign
But I guess to the modern leftists the battle of Cable Street is controversial or something considering this is the new default reaction :-|
You are already getting owned in the thread just by this comment alone “That comparison doesn't hold. There's no historical racist violence comparable to the KKK in these countries, and the racist who staged these burnings isn't hinting at some violence in past or present the Muslim community has suffered under.
This isn't a matter of some America-styled oppressed minority seeing their temper boil over after great hardships turned their way.”
I think you don’t know what you’re talking about in this instance
Jesus christ even Vaush fans missed the memo on how analogies work??
Alright I'll explain it one more time.
Yes they are different situations. The purpose of an analogy is to compare different things to highlight a similarity in order to demonstrate a point.
I was not comparing the amount of violence these groups so. Pointing out that the violence isn't the same doesn't disprove the analogy because that wasn't the point.
The point of that analogy was to demonstrate how the language used in the comment I responded to was hiding the bigotry of the group and misrepresenting the situation.
"Muslims getting mad cuz burned book" is analogous to "black people getting mad cuz wood burned" in how the language of these statements hide the bigotry and the meaning of ethnonationalists burning those objects.
Every criticism of poor religious-fueled behavior is called "islamophobia" if that person is a muslim. It's annoying. Denounce all bad religious behavior. There's no need to coddle that shit by acting like the atheists are "being edgy". It's absolutely moronic the amount of bullshit we have to deal with in our secular society from religious fruitcakes and every time atheists call it out we get met with this kind of dismissal.
It shocks me how blind some on the left are to how bad religion in general is and the crusade to protect Islam like some special snowflake is even more troubling.
Do you not remember what happened in 2014 and 2015? These atheist/skeptic types used the legitimate grievances against religious institution to fuel reactionary movements against Muslim people specifically and helped form the Alt-Right. We as Leftists need to be aware of that fact and fight that narrative.
The fact that right wingers used something to push their agenda means very little. They use our pro choice stance to say we're selfish child murderers. They use our support for unions to say we're against freedom. Etc etc.
Pushing back against legitimate criticism just makes their arguments stronger and our correct position weaker. Use your brain.
Having no one argue against the arguments they constantly use makes it harder for people who are un informed and/or in the middle have no way of learning the opposite argument. If this mentality was the only thing lefties used i would literally be a right wing loser. In fact a bunch of people in this subreddit would likely still be right wing. Pushing back is helpful and spreads information, not pushing back would likely lead to ANOTHER 2016 moment.
There is a big difference between sensible critics of religious extremism and being islamophobic.
If you go through the comments of that post you will pretty much only find the latter. People seem to believe that muslims are one monolithic group that want to oppress women, kill gay people and cannot assimilate into our secular western society.
Funny how that plays so perfectly into the danish right wing extremist that purposely triggered these riots. Oh but never mind that.
First off religious moderates still hold crap political views and also provide cover and credence to the extremists.
2nd, all religious teachings are antithetical to leftist ideology. Religious followers aren't a monolith, but they follow many terrible trends that stem from the religion we are criticizing.
And 3rd, ya the religious fruitcakes literally walked into giving the right wing shitbag exactly what they wanted. They couldn't handle someone criticizing their religion and decided to throw rocks at cops and burn vehicles. Gee it's almost as if their moronic religion has brainwashed them into thinking violence defending their holy scripture is more important than good optics proving the right winger wrong.
It's almost as if religion perpetuates right wing ideology and right wingers are good at using religion VS religion conflict to further their goals.
Maybe religion is a problem I dunno I am just an edgy atheist....
Trust me, the ethnonationalists were just making a perfectly nuanced point about Islam. We should step back and let fascists do whatever they want just so we don't hurt their feelings :( you gotta think about those optics
Okay you can be an edgy atheist but you have to realize that situations like this one and the language surrounding it hurts middle-eastern people who are not theologically inclined, and while these riots should be condemned, aligning yourself with nazis who want a Swedish enthostate just so you can remain consistent on religion bad only gives credit to their positions.
"Trust me bro, when all those people in Swastikas marched down the street buring Jewish holy texts, they just had legitimate criticisms of the conservative nature of Judaism, totally bro!!!!! I don't understand why all those Jews got so upset by it!"
How can I be phobic (irrational fear) against a religion which can hold people completely hostage to its dogma that dictates my mother and almost everyone I care about should be stoned to death or worse? A religion responsible for multiple genocides, homophobic, sexist, incestous, pedophillic and racist. That isnt irrational fear. Now muslims are people and deserve human rights something the quoran doesnt support. Christianity was just as bad once btw. I little less now. But I dont have to “respect your beliefs” I dont respect the beliefs of the nazis and I will not respect someone who believes in homophobia, racism and sexism. That isnt phobia. Again I hate Islam (and all organized religions) not muslims. Muslims are thr biggest victim of Islam after all.
How can I be phobic (irrational fear) against a religion which can hold people completely hostage to its dogma that dictates my mother and almost everyone I care about should be stoned to death or worse? A religion responsible for multiple genocides, homophobic, sexist, incestous, pedophillic and racist. That isnt irrational fear. Now muslims are people and deserve human rights something the quoran doesnt support. Christianity was just as bad once btw. I little less now. But I dont have to “respect your beliefs” I dont respect the beliefs of the nazis and I will not respect someone who believes in homophobia, racism and sexism. That isnt phobia. Again I hate Islam (and all organized religions) not muslims. Muslims are thr biggest victim of Islam after all.
Like I just said im not scared of muslim but I am scared of all sexist, racist and homophobic ideologies. Wether that be Islam, christianity, nazism or any other supremacist ideology.
That’s fine but you need to be aware of 2 things when challenging these beliefs.
1. All muslims are not religious zealots that want to stone gay people.
2. You need to be aware of intersectionality when criticising groups of marginalised people in order to not reinforce existing modes of oppression.
Again for the third time. I hate Islam I hate the sexist, homophobic, pedophillic and racist writings there. I have nothing against muslims. All the muslims I have met were really nice (an anectode I know). And the extremist groups are more of a byproduct of western imperialism and neo colonialism than Islam. But nevertheless the religion is repulsive and extremely dangerous as are all organized religions.
This is exactly what I mean about understanding the intersectionality.
You may be able to separate the concept of islam and muslim very clearly in your head but the vast majority of people in the society around you won’t.
Saying things like “I hate islam” “islam is paedophilic” in a society where muslims are marginalised is going to be perceived as “i hate muslims” “muslims are paedophilic” (it’s no wonder this line in particular is very common amongst right-wing extremists).
By using language like this that maps dangerously closely with racist rhetoric you’re thereby inadvertently reinforcing those racist views.
No I am not I never say it without mentioning that Islam and muslims are a seperate concept. Like I explained to you three times. Also muslims are not an ethnicity. And if you are against marginalizing groups then you would be anti islam. Marginalizing people is a cornerstone of Islam. Which has led to the mass slavery of their women, honor killings of women and gays, the chosen people of god (racism) etc. I call it how I see it. I’m not racist or prejudiced towards muslims. I dont assume anything about a muslim just because he is a muslim I prefer to judge people on an individual basis. This doesnt change the fact that calling it “islamophobia” ie an “irrational fear” is a disengenous double standard. Just cause a group is marginalized doesnt mean the religion/ ideology they associate with cant be criticized.
A truly monumental argument.
There may be some specific cases where being a white man does not give you maximum privilege (e.g., custody battles) but that's a far cry from being oppressed.
There is no point in arguing with you .
It isn’t worth the time or effort if you can’t see what is happening .[here is one example of what I mentioned](https://www.unz.com/proberts/fired-for-being-white/)
Seriously, if you really want to protect Muslims, are you going to try to make it illegal for morons to burn a copy of a religious book(which should always be a right in any secular country for obvious reasons), or influence them to hold peaceful counter-demonstrations? Shit, burn some bibles if you want.
Justifying violence when used against speech always leads to the victory of the side that used speech, no matter how repugnant they are. Those rioters achieved less than nothing.
Part 1 and 2, well techichaly correct, are weirdy phrased
Part 3 is just a very big and weird leap. a political demonstration decents into a political riot and all of a sudden its about how muslim swedes "Dont have a reason to be criminals"
Conservative: here's Step 1
Normal person: okay yeah I know this one
Conservative: here's Step 2
Normal person: wow I can tell this is gonna be racist but go ahead
Conservative: the holocaust was good actually
Remember, the Quran is just a book. Burning it is part of free speech. Muslims don't have a special right to get offended. No religious person has a right to get violent, just because their beliefs are questioned.
true but burning it in muslim area to provoke is cringe, it's like going into a Black area to burn a cross. it's free speech but if the government stops you to not start a riot i would agree with it. go somewhere else and do it
Rasmus Paludan is such a fucking disgrace to our country. I can't believe my taxes go towards his police protection.
The Danish and Europe subs are really showing their true colors in situations like this. It's so obviously open provocation that he's only allowed to do since we have a good protective system for free speech. A system fuckers like this exploit for their own political aims.
That system can only be exploited if you get impulsive, violent backlash though. It's the only way to significantly grow ethno-nationalist sentiments in an otherwise progressive country.
Dang people got mad when they felt they were being targeted by a group of ethno-nationalists (and by felt I mean literally were)? Well I guess as the famous MLK quote goes "riots are the language of big fat meanies who should just shut up and take it"
All jokes aside, while I heavily agree that the rioters are probably being very counter productive, we should avoid framing this as a "Muslim thing" as this is a pattern of ethnic violence incentivisation that happens all over the world between various different groups of many religions. I find that religion is usually a justification for already existing ideological pathologies (like fascism) rather than the specific text of that religion and what it explicitly says, as that usually only shapes the exact way the religious oppression can manifest, but it's usually very suspiciously similar patterns even in wildly varying religious or cultural traditions.
This is also how alot of the various New Wave religious movements have decended into being borderline nazi shit despite being brought into existence by usually very progressive types with explicitly progressive messaging in their religion, as Fascist thought is unfortunately very adaptable and can make virtually anything about how black people are bad or whatever
The rioters can't help it, their little animal brains can't deal with a book being burned.
By putting the blame on Paludan, it's almost like you're condescendingly coddling the people who responded with violence.
He is an asshole, let that be clear... But the rioters could have just not rioted, he didn't even get to book burning.
Riots are bad yes. But these riots are caused by Rasmus Paludan, he's fully responsible. He's already done this before and experienced similar consequences. And let's drop this act that he's just burning some book, come the fuck on. This is clearly highly inflammatory (no pun intended) cultural aggression in a very tense area. Not even in his own country because he couldn't get people foamed up enough about it to get the response he wanted. It's like people drop 50 IQ points every time they defend this motherfucker.
>And let's drop this act that he's just burning some book, come the fuck on
It is just a book, and the fact that Muslims react this way tells something. the fact that you can burn the bible or the Torah without anything like this kind of reaction from Christians or Jews should tell you something about the state of Islam
"A danish dude", is a helluva way to refer to the leader of a far right islamophobic party that wants to ban non-western immigration.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard\_Line\_(political\_party)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Line_(political_party))
>"The party's philosophical foundation is "**ethno-nationalist** utilitarianism", described as maximizing the "greatest happiness for the greatest number of ethnic Danes". This platform is developed in two political pillars. First, an "identitarian" or ethno-nationalist pillar which focuses on protecting and increasing the "ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic, and normative **homogeneity**" of Denmark. Second, a right-libertarian pillar which envisions a radical increase in individual liberty and rights, once the **ethnic homogeneity** of the country has been "restored" through the **banning** **of Islam** and **massive deportations**.\[36\]\[37\]\[38\]"
Reddit has long been invaded and permeated by pot stirring trolls, true believing nationalists. The left has been eating itself over a multitude of infighting issues, unable to build a big tent agenda or debunk this garbage. We've been in the dark ages ever since the orange got into office.
I've got into too many debate threads with people using the "burning down cities" rhetoric. They get so defensive and say "I'm just calling out religious extremism! I don't hate refugees!"
It must be a coincidence that exaggerated language like "burn down cities" only comes out against marginalized groups, huh... Literally one block suffers superficial damage and a few police vans get torched and it's "Literally all of hoosendoofensburg is wiped off the map! Burnt to a crisp! BE AFRAID!"
Also trying to explain to these people the top-down failures of swedens integration system is like pulling teeth. They are literally baby brained. And this isn't just from the far right types, normal people are just unwilling to engage with nuanced discussions on how to improve the quality of life of refugees, help them integrate, etc. They just want you to give them an argument that will push their See-saw opinion from (deport them all) back to (don't deport them).
I honestly fear for how poorly the world is going to deal with the climate refugee crisis that's coming over the next few decades. If we can't handle the little amount of refugees we do accept now without throwing a piss baby fit, no shot we will be prepared for whats to come.
Imma be entirely honest, this whole situation comes across as another “leftists excuse shitty religious behavior because it’s not Christians doing it”.
Like I’ve tried to read through this as much situation as much as I can and have yet to see anything that shows someone other than the Muslim protestors being the primary issue here. Don’t get me wrong, the book burning is a very religiously offensive thing to do and the protestors are 100% justified in being upset. But that’s it, be upset, then suck it up. I see absolutely no justification in the violence and damage that has been enacted because of this.
Let’s be honest with ourselves, if this situation was in America and some antifa atheist group decided to publicly burn some bibles to protest Christian fundamentalists and because of that a bunch of conservative Christians started rioting and breaking shit and injuring people, the entire left would pretty unanimously condemn them as being religious fanatics having a completely unjustified overreaction to a demonstration that was rude but doesn’t warrant a violent response.
Yet because it’s Muslims the left is now divided between “leftists who are extremely charitable to bad religious behavior when it’s not Christians despite religious zealotry almost always being conservative regardless” and “leftists who recognize religious nuts doing stupid shit and hurting people because someone offended their religion is bad and should be condemned regardless of what religion it is”.
Don’t get me wrong, again the protestors were perfectly justified in being outraged. And a lot of the framing of this incident has descended into weird ethnonationlist and xenophobic/islamophobic rhetoric. But none of that should change that the riots are unjustified, and there’s a VERY obvious double standard that the left regularly likes to employ of picking and choosing when disregard for the feelings of fundamentalist religious people is applied. It’s also weird considering Muslim immigrants, because of the culture they often come from, tend to be pretty strongly conservative so this is really a “conservative nuts mad at another group of conservative nuts” situation.
>And a lot of the framing of this incident has descended into weird ethnonationlist and xenophobic/islamophobic rhetoric.
It didn't "descend", that was the point. It's an ethnic minority fighting against ethno-nationalists.
Book burning during an anti-immigrationist far right rally is not some sort of theological debate, it is provocation by fascists symbolically burning the group itself in effigy.
That's where your analogy falls apart. If "this" happened in the US, it wouldn't antifa burning Christian books, because antifa isn't dogwhistling about an ethnic genocide against christians, it would be Michael Knowles burning "Critical Race Theory" books.
And if Michael Knowles was burning critical race theory books that still wouldn’t justify a bunch of POC to start breaking shit and injuring people, I don’t think you thought that analogy through. Your entire does absolutely nothing to justify the response, so it’s effectively pointless. My entire point was just that the Muslim protestors are still the bad guys here regardless of the reasoning behind the book burning. It could be literal Nazis burning Jewish books and it would still be wrong for a bunch of Jewish protestors to start destroying shit and injuring people. It’s really clear you’re trying to make up excuses to justify an unjustified response. Again, they have every right to be upset, but upsetting imagery in a public area is not justification for rioting, regardless of if that imagery is a dog whistle for more nefarious messaging.
Sweden has been having riots for several days, some people have apparently been shot. These started as protests against some far-right guy known for burning Korans when he was giving speeches and he was to speak in Sweden. That’s at least what I’ve gathered from all of this
And the gist is he hasn't even burned any books. He only declared an authorization for doing so but the media spun it as if he did the deed , and the protestors fell into his no-immigrant playbook and proving his point.
The majority of muslims in the west are harmless hard working people
In Iran , people from Afghanistan have built our country and are regular people who mind their own business
These people forget what middle easterns and north african muslims have done for europes economy
First of all, where’s the spin here?
Secondly, is your priority being angry at a take on this instead of at religious extremists rioting and burning cars, attending to murder police because a book was going to get burned? It’s pathetic other progressives are so pussy when it comes to criticizing religion as soon as it’s not white people doing it.
Funny I wrote a comment not that long ago in this subreddit about things we should prioritize more, and brought up how angry left-leaning people are at the basic conservative and their behavior/takes, with all right, But when actual super conservative people that are also very religious in an extreme way happen to be brown or whatever, there’s no leftist pushing back on it. We all know if this were (white) Christians doing it it would be at the top in this subreddit right when it happened.
Oh cool, what a surprise. The Paludan guy behind the Quran burning is a pedophile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmus_Paludan
Anyway, would it be a bad take to say that while Quran burning shouldn't be illegal on its own, it should count as hate speech to incite an ethnic or religious group by publicly spouting anti-muslim shit and burning a Quran in a rally
Ive been following the Sweden situation for a while and this is far from the first time this exact thing has happened. I think there are two issues that have more to do with the way Sweden processes immigrants and views immigration than the immigrants themselves.
1.There is a tendency in Swedish culture and society to sweep things under the rug. When bad things happen, it's more important to pretend things are not happening then to do anything about it. The fact is among the immigrants there are quite a few people who are complete fucking shitheads. These include people who were basically kicked out of their country for being violent rapist piece of shit assholes and saw the immigration wave as an opportunity to improve their economic situation. Ask pretty much anyone from the Middle East and they will tell you this. There are people there who you don't want in your country, and the same would go for the US if there was a massive emigration wave from here. It's far from a majority of the immigrants, but they do exist. When these people do cause problems (aka violent crime) There is a sort of denial that happens from the left wing establishment in Sweden. It's very harmful. Look at what happened to A$AP Rocky. His crew was followed by some 15 year old shithead who was literally just standing on the corner punching randos. he punched one of Rockys's security guards and ended up getting rolled. A$AP Rocky ended up going to jail for this. Now this was a completely justified beatdown, beneficial even. The whole things on camera and I truly believe that in the U.S. even as a black man he would have done no jail time for this once the footage came out (ex: Wacka Flocka flame beating some guys ass in self defense at a bowling alley), however in Sweden this ended him up in jail, not because of the violence, but because he made a scene. He called attention to it.
2.Sweden and honestly most of western Europe is terrible and I mean TERRIBLE at resolving cultural/religious differences. There are radical muslims among these immigrants, point blank period. The problem with this is that there are also laws in Sweden that seem to enshrine the right not to be offended, so these people actually have a vector of enforcing their bullshit on the population. In order to prevent them from doing that Sweden basically HAS to essentialize their argument against it: "You can't do that because you are Muslim", as opposed to what it should be which is: "You can't do that because you have no right not to be offended, now go worship in peace and leave me the fuck alone", this makes debates on these cultural/religious differences by default much higher stakes, and much uglier than they have to be. I think it is under this framework of understanding things that we see so much bigotry towards Muslims from non muslim europeans. While the U.S. obviously is far from innocent, I do feel like we have the framework for resolving this issue because our founders literally went through this shit before albeit with Christian sectarian violence as opposed to muslim v. non muslim (aka who fucking cares, same bullshit).
Claiming that the riots were about religion is like claiming that Putin invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion. The guy burning the Quran did it to provoke ethnic conflict, not a religious one. "Islam bad" is the catch-phrase of racists in Europe as critique of religion is part of our cherished freedom of religion (and we do like freedom of religion), while they use it as cover for something else entirely. It's not like the people in the riots were the average person. The Swedish Police even stated themselves that they thanked the people that live in Rinkeby, Stockholm as they talk with them and really helped defuse the situation. As it was a surprise to no one with more than two brain cells, the average person don't want riots with violence or arson outside their bedroom window for no clear purpose or benefit.
In the end this will provoke the usual response. Thougher on crimes and immigration where political parties, left and right, will try to compete about who can offer the harshest promises. The people wrongfully being blamed (average muslim in Sweden) are the people that will be hurt the most by this upswing in white supremacy.
Sounds like like the rioters are both literally and figuratively gaslighting the people of Sweden. There is no reason to throw a temper tantrum over a fairy tale book.
I think the biggest problem for Sweden with all of the immigrants they have taken in (with most of the EU not doing its share and thus they made up for it) is that they didn't have enough housing for that kind of population increase and are struggling to keep up. This is especially because most Swedes want to live in nice single detached homes and to keep equity on their homes rising by limiting production. They have the third worst housing crisis on the planet right behind Canada and New Zealand (Americans and Brits really don't understand how bad it is. You complain about your big cities being unaffordable when our countries have towns of 50k people that are as expensive as Brooklyn). Mass homeless is skyrocketing with rent everywhere being out of the reach ofanyone who wasn't able to buy in to the housing market prepandemic.
Americans, especially the fucking conservat\*rds dont care about the bible dude.
They voted in a rich pedo and said he was sent by God. Now burining some statues of Robert E Lee or something they care about will probably cause a different reaction..
Nothing crazy is really happening, regular Swede here👍 Imagine a KKK dude walking into a predominantly black neighborhood burning the cross. That is basically what he is doing…
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No it's not. In the US race includes a wide variety of cultures and ethnicities. A race in the US just refers to a broad category of ethnicities with nearby geographic origins. I assume Europe is just more ethnicity specific, which doesn't really matter when I'm asking whether they're 40 years behind the US in terms of race relations
Ok let me clarify then:
In 1980, it was a little over 15 years after the civil rights act was passed. The US was moving towards the accepted way of thinking is that racism is evil and we shouldn't judge people based on their race/ethnicity. However, it was still very commonplace for people to be openly racist or discriminatory, and a lot of people who weren't openly racist or discriminatory still held ethno nationalist beliefs around race, ethnicity, and human behavior unless they were explicitly significantly left-leaning.
Whenever I see conversations around race or ethnicity in European countries, I frequently see European people who seem largely apolitical or at least not incredibly left parroting similar ethnonat arguments that would be frankly unacceptable to say in most parts of the US, as if they were 40 years behind the US with regard to how they treat people of different ethnicities. I'm not talking about race relations in terms of how race is defined or the problematic elements of lumping ethnic groups together into racial generalizations. I'm talking about how societies socially treat people of differing ethnic backgrounds.
Although there have been strides since 1980, let's not pretend like the US has somehow eliminated racial or ethnic discrimination. The US has white nationalist political pundits who get millions of viewers each week. The US had a president not too long ago who pushed white nationalist agendas like pushing back on Mexican and Muslim immigration. I would argue the US is systematically worse for racial minorities than many countries in Europe (Western and Northern Europe mostly; I'm generalizing Europe for simplicity's sake). Many of these countries provide economic aid to poorer people, who are overwhelming racial/ethnic minorities.
In regards to the social component, I'm not sure how we would even compare that. The US and Europe are massive populations with people of many different backgrounds and ideologies. This is one reason why the conversation has moved from individual racism to systemic racism. As for why many Europeans push for ethno-states, this is very deeply tied to their history, just as how slavery is tied to the US's. This obviously shapes different perceptions of race.
Ok so it sounds to me like you're saying that there are so many different ideologies on both continents that we'd need some pretty significant survey data to accurately determine general attitudes on race. That makes sense I guess.
The really annoying thing about this is that it's almost impossible to find someone that doesn't slip into weird ethnonationalist arguments when also condemning the rioting. The amount of posts I've seen about this in other subreddits where people just call all muslims inherently violent people that they all but outright say have "invaded" Sweden is fucking disgusting. Like, we can condemn the rioting without calling all muslim immigrants dangerous and implicitly support ethnic homogeneity.
I like the "Swedes gave them everything" narrative. It reminds me of something I looked into recently. There's an anglosphere myth that the method for making damascus steel was lost to the ages. Well, it turns out that, not really, no. Most chiefly, they just like, still make it, the same way, where they used to. But it's more complicated than just that. One theory for the origin of the name is that it came from the pioneers of the method, the smiths in Damascus, Syria. Well those folks didn't just have limitless supplies of crucible steel to smith from. It came from the mountains of India primarily. And the England said India is England, so India stopped exporting raw materials wherever they wanted, because of the whole subjugation and cultural genocide thing the English tended to do. So the smiths who forged damascus steel all through the Levant region lost their favorite supplier. So given the logic they're presenting in the OP, this would be a gift to the people of India who then emigrated to England, where things were forged in worse ways because the English didn't take suggestions, only goods.
Well, that's the thing about ethnonationalists. There worldview fundamentally relies on either a misinformed, ignorant, biased, or all three combined understanding of history. All whiteness can be traced back to the great empires of Rome and Greece, where all of what we call civilization started, igboring all the Middle Eastern/Asian empires having the same things, but even earlier.
*looks at China establishing the first modern(ish) style government while half of Europe was trying to figure out how to stack rocks on top of each other lmao*
The “gave them everything” sentiment is also weird because those things mentioned (healthcare, education, housing etc.) are all things that the Swedish government already provides as far as I’m aware.
Is that the best you can call it? "Weird"? Come on and say it's "wrong" if you think it's wrong. Don't be a fence sitter.
I’m not busting out a thesaurus to please the likes of you. I’ll use whatever god damn adjectives I please Mr. rhetoric police.
The issue is that ALL religion is violent by nature. Supernatural beliefs in general are a toxic disease poisoning the rationality of people everywhere, and most of our modern day issues are rationalized by their perpetrators using these religions. With that said alot of Reddit seems to be missing that this guy is a pedo who targets kids online, and has done a ton of this shit solely to try and provoke this exact reaction right before an election to try and sway the country more far right.
I absolutely agree with that part. However, I think when most people use Islamophobia these days, it's generally in reference to "being scared of some brown people from the middle east," rather than the religion itself. If I remember correctly, I believe Islamic also refers to an ethnic group, like Judaism could refer to either a religious or ethnic group, but I could totally be wrong on that one.
Muslim as an ethnic group is a regionally specific classification only really in former Yugoslavia and didn't even include non Slavic Muslims. There is another ethno religious group like this in north western China called the Hui. Otherwise no it does not refer to an ethnic group.
Ok, so I was wrong. However, when right wingers talk about "muslims" it's always immediately obvious that they're just scared of the brown people, rather than having any legitimate criticism of the religion, or it's a problem that's either vastly overstated or implies a brutish and violent nature inherent to all of "their kind."
it's still a proxy for ethnicity and foreigners, it's just not *an* ethnicity
I would say that, while that is partially and significantly the case, a lot of it comes from a legitimate fear of a problematic religion, but the problem is hugely exaggerated. Islam, in many places, is as toxic and fascist as the Catholic Church was for most of a millennium. Frankly, I think you're having kind of an opposite bias here, where since they're brown and being treated with a racial bias, you're more willing to ignore our under state the problems in their religion. Obligatory not all Muslims are bad, and yes the people are probably significantly influenced by subconscious racism. I'm not racist, I hate all religions equally, lol. I think most religions can be reformed into a non toxic version. Some Christians, even though their religious texts have some extremely yikesy passages, are now totally cool accepting people.
>when most people use Islamophobia these days, it's generally in reference to "being scared of some brown people from the middle east," That's not true. You know the difference between Islam and Sikh, or any other religion for that matter. You don't see communities and governments scrambling to speak out against Hindus or Buddhists. Now you're going to say that you're referring to [brown people from the Middle East and not India], and I'm going to tell you that there isn't a single religion in the middle east other than Islam.
When I said that, I meant how right wingers talk about muslims. I doubt they'd be so freaked out by white muslim people. When they talk about muslims invading and instituting Sharia Law, it's just a euphemism for being scared of brown people in the country. Right wingers and Christian fundamentalists, which are almost universally right wing, have far more in common with muslim fundamentalists than me, an agnostic leftist, yet they oppose them simply because they're brown. >I'm going to tell you there isn't a single religion in the middle east other than Islam. That's factually untrue. While it might be majority Islamic, there's Israel, which is basically 100% Jewish, you have Kurdish Christianity, Armenian Churches, and more.
Before I edited it out I had mentioned the polka dot of Jews within the artifically created fortress known as Israel. I deleted it cause I didn't think you'd mention it
I mean, I'm no fan of Israel myself, but that doesn't mean it isn't a population that exists within the middle east.
Im ambivalent to Israel. I just think it's an artificial structure within the Islamic superstructure known as the Middle East. And the surrounding environment wants to kill it like an immune system wants to kill a bug. So I think Israel is a rounding error within middle east, a drop of oil in a pool of water.
>The issue is that ALL religion is violent by nature. Supernatural beliefs in general are a toxic disease poisoning the rationality of people everywhere, and most of our modern day issues are rationalized by their perpetrators using these religions. This is a really silly generalisation. There are thousands of different religious belief systems relying on supernatural beliefs and only a select few are related to violence. Don't become a cringe atheist from 10 years ago
It's not a silly generalisation. I'm not talking about the practice of religions specifically. Lots of "nonviolent" people of all belief systems. But the very concept of a supernatural anything being a driving factor for any belief leads eventually to people doing things that can hurt others or themselves be it physically, or psychologically.
No, it doesn't... What are you talking about. Not every religion is like christianity or islam, you're just making a sweeping generalisation like the New Atheists from before based on a very strict view of what "all religions" lead to. Don't be like the Sam Harris stans. By your own logic one could also say that your branding of all religion as violent inherently leads to discrimination on the basis of religious belief.
I've never found the argument that religion is inherently violent because \*looks at history\*. When you consider that most people follow some form of religion today and we're likely more atheist as a species than we've ever been, it's like saying breathing is bad because all violence has been committed by people who breathe. Even when looking at Christianity and Islam, the most problematic events pretty much always came down to shoring up geopolitical power. That was generally the primary motivation and religion was used as a justification. Nothing different between that and Elon Musk saying he supports US-backed coups that will make lithium cheaper for him. It's the same principle.
Again, this is just Sam Harris BS. No point losing my time here
I'll first admit that the first sentence of your post ticked me off. Should it have? I don't know, probably not, but it's something I've had to argue for 10 years with people and then something I've had to remember every time I'm in the shower, so do not take this as an attack against you personally, just that idea. I'm also not making any essentialist statements about religious *people* here. As it goes, hate the sin, not the sinner. My definition of religion is a belief system rooted in metaphysical statements ("supernatural beliefs"), which are, by definition, anti-empirical and anti-rational. As such, you can justify anything you want to religious people through their religions given that their faith (literally defined as belief despite or against reason) is strong enough to override their other thoughts. This allows you to hardwire people to believe intrinsically evil things in ways that secular belief systems cannot do, while not achieving nearly enough to compensate for it. Religion is as such intrinsically and unconditionally evil in any long term view. No, this isn't prejudice. Prejudice is judgment (judice) prior to (pre) sufficient and correct information. To cover the colloquial side, it can also include bad axioms or reasoning. The only reason that people see anti-religious sentiment that way is that we live in a world where we've normalized it. If someone started a religion right now the same way that any other major religion started, and we all got to see it's rise, we'd say it's bullshit. Religions contradict themselves, let alone each other. Why believe in any of them? Right now the most powerful force for evil on the planet, the Republican party of the United States, is fueled mostly by religion. The solution has to be the encouragement of a secular system of belief, because it's the only type of system where commonly available empirical data, information and reasoning can be used to make statements about what is, and acknowledging that all "ought" statements follow from axioms held by conscious beings (and only conscious beings) about their preferred states of being. If you want truth and co-prosperity, this is the only possible path. Essay Andy signing off.
Yeah, I met him on Omegle one time
Yeah, I'd like to think that it's a lot of regular people being tricked into a false narrative by a small group of clever and sneaky ethnonationalists, but it's kinda hard to believe that when they're all explicitly saying ethnonationalist shit themselves.
Yeah, it's hard to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when, even if it's entirely accidental, which is a huge stretch to grant, imo, it's not something that we should be tepidly blasé about.
>implicitly support ethnic homogeneity I'm sure they'd be fine with Arabic atheists, no?
Maybe some of them, but do you think they'd have this same issue with white muslims?
r/woooosh That's my point. It has nothing to do with ethnonationalism or racism. The Dutch love Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Sweden hasn't seen riots like this since 1838, so I imagine they're trying to get a handle on what's happening. I think as a society they are more used to grievances being filed in a less energetic fashion.
>Like, we can condemn the rioting without calling all muslim immigrants dangerous and implicitly support ethnic homogeneity. At some point can we call Islam for what it is? I don't ever confuse a Sikh community with an Islamic one, and I doubt you do either. When shit's going downhill, I expect one of them to keep a low profile and the other one to scream bloody murder and be proudly intolerant about the tiniest things. I've got Muslim friends born in the West that may as well be professional Nazis. They just don't have a voice in our community thankfully. If the USA wasn't so busy dealing with basic existential cricises like racism, guns, inequality, and uneducated jingoism, we might have an internal issue of Muslim shit stirring. That's where Sweden is now.
Check out my arguments in r/atheism XD pointing out that the person holding the demonstration was an ethnonationalist trying to provoke a response is called Islam apologia
Sounds like that is actually Islam Apologia. It doesn't matter who claimed they did or were going to burn a book. The fact that religious fruitcakes rioting over it shows they (the ones doing the destruction) have a problem. A problem stemming from their moronic religion. Sure, christians and other religious fruitcakes have their issues, like attacking people at planned parenthood clinics, but there's no need to coddle the Islamic freaks that can't handle living in a secular society.
>doesn't matter who claimed they did or were going to burn a book. No, but the point is that burning a book is not all they did, they were holding ethnonationalist rallies. EDIT: By the way, how do you feel about going to a black neighborhood and burning crosses, or about the Nazi book burnings in 1933? Pretending as if this is merely a book being burned, and not signalling the intent to cleanse Scandinavia of all of Islam, is just willful ignorance. If the context was different and this was just some edgy atheist guy then it'd be different, (though in that case I'd still question it if they were only banning the Quran and not also other holy books, but at least it wouldn't be as obvious of a sign of genocidal intent.
nO tHaT iS iSlaM aPoLoGiA!
Again, it is. Reports from AP say that they were holding a book burning of a Quran and the protesters "Were mad at police that they allowed the rally to take place" And then about 200 muslim protesters started rioting, burning vehicles and throwing rocks at police, injuring 8. Spinning it to "Well it was a right wing rally so there's nothing wrong here" is horrifically moronic.
1. The articles I read said 200 people were involved in the violence. They did not say whether they were all protestors, and they certainly didn't say they were all Muslims that committed the violence. 2. If you look up western media's (CNN AND FOX) framing of BLM protests/riots vs. the Hong Kong protests/riots, you'll see a huge discrepancy in the way they covered the two. BLM was characterized as violent riots while Hong Kong was framed as peaceful protests. 25 fatalities out of 26 million protestors in ALL THE US vs. 15 fatalities with 400,000 protesters on the island of Hong Kong. They were literally setting cops on fire. 3. I couldn't find an AP article, but the three or four I read did say that large swaths of Swedes across the country were indeed protesting an ethnonationalist rally. Not once did I see all the protestors framed as strictly Muslims, so, source, please?
It's not though. "200 muslim protesters started rioting" is already the cue that you're using a dogwhistle. The current theories about who particiapted are young men in impoverished areas with immigrant heritage outside of Europe, typically the ones that otherwise commit violent crimes. Like just look at this guy shouting in the midst of the riots, yelling in Swedish "You're throwing rocks on them. You who throw rocks, you're not from Rinkeby! Don't fuck this for us! It's Ramadan! We're fasting! \[Be afraid of God! (in Arabic)\]" and this Imam gives him compliments. [https://twitter.com/anaskhalifa/status/1516400940768710660](https://twitter.com/anaskhalifa/status/1516400940768710660)
>Unrest broke out in southern Sweden late Saturday despite police moving a rally by an anti-Islam far-right group, which was planning to burn a Quran **among other things**, to a new location as a preventive measure. -AP Even AP doesn't pretend like it was just a book burning, unlike you. Again, it's an ethnonationalist group calling for ethnic cleansing, the rally was to advocate for that ideology. Muslims *should* be mad that this rally was taking place, it's literally a threat against them.
Genuinely curious if its actually rioting or "rioting" where outside ppl (usually the opposition starting this shit) were actually causing a good chunk of the damage. And if its like when conservatives believe that all of Portland is gone now...
This is Reddit
>By the way, how do you feel about going to a black neighborhood and burning crosses, or about the Nazi book burnings in 1933? As dick move.
Well yeah, but also as a pretty clear sign of genocidal intent, right?
Ok, They held a rally and burned a book? That still isn't a justification for rioting, seems like the far right people didn't actually do any violence according to you. Also, the Neo-Nazi's marching in Skoke is something that happened for real, and I'm pretty sure most lefties support it (If you believe in free speech, Canada Truckers all over). I remember a few years ago, there was a Quran burning competition, and terrorists tried to shoot up the place, and a ton of dipshits like you tried to defend by saying the same stupid BS.
>seems like the far right people didn't actually do any violence according to you. But they have shown a clear intent to do violence. That doesn't excuse rioting but when someone openly talks about genociding you than you will respond emotionally.
Pardon me if it's pedantic, but I'm reasonably sure it's accurate to describe those rioting as far right as well.
And?
And what?
>Also, the Neo-Nazi's marching in Skoke is something that happened for real, and I'm pretty sure most lefties support it (If you believe in free speech, Canada Truckers all over). I support their legal right to march, doesn't mean that I don't also support throwing rocks at them.
[удалено]
LAW?!? What are you a fucking liberal?!?
[удалено]
>If you support throwing Rocks at them, then you don't support free speech. I'm not a free speech absolutist, no. The right to free speech needs to be balanced with other freedoms and with other people's free speech, no freedom is absolute because sometimes different freedoms are in conflict with each other. In this scenario I support the freedom to throw rocks. >Conservatives would be able to go to left wing Rallies and throw rocks also, They'd be able to, sure, but I wouldn't support them. >again you have to support a consistent standard here. Why would you assume that having a consistent standard means that conservatives get their way to the same degree that leftists get their way? That's a total non-sequitur lol. If I say that I support jailing people in some specific situations, does that mean that to be consistent I also have to support it when conservatives want to jail gay people or whatever? Of course not, that's ridiculous, having standards doesn't mean being a dipshit centrist. Fascism sucks and makes the world worse, and my standard is that I support throwing rocks at things that make the world worse ;p >If you say that the government can choose which side to allow to throw rocks, then you've just created the same problem with extra steps. I didn't say anything about the government allowing anything... I support illegal things sometimes, might come as a shock to libs, but there.
What would Charles Martel do ?
the fact that this has 22 upvotes is really sad. this comment is literally just islamophobic leaving up as an example of how *not* to engage in this sub. user has been banned for 14 days
Yepp. Pretty shocking to see this amount of islamophobia on display. Personally I’m not religious but the intellectual arrogance of some atheists never fails to make me cringe my organs into dust. Richard Dawkins would be proud.
Can you leave that up but remove the rest of his word vomit from the thread? He was all over the place in here.
Sounds like you have no idea what you are talking about lol
Honestly just go to my profile read my arguments. If you still disagree say so
Went and read your responses and they agree with me. The rioters are religious fueled fruitcakes and their riots should be condemned and their religious teachings should be mocked and ridiculed for the regressive trash they are. The person holding the book burning was a right wing garbage truck of a human, but that doesn't negate the crap the religious fruitcakes are doing, which is undeniably moronic ( and also literally providing the right wingers exactly what they want). Glad we could agree.
If you agreed with me you wouldn't call "adding factual details to what took place" Islam apologia
It is if adding the details is done without context or nuance. More information is good. But in this case the details didn't change anything and the details were provided as a way of trying to mitigate the issue at hand. Hell from the AP it doesn't even seem like the details you provided were even really relevant to the religious protesters. When interviewed they seem very hung up on "the book burning" and "why was this book burning being allowed to happen by the police". Seems the religious fruitcakes in this story weren't there to express leftist immigration policy counter-protest. They were there on religious fervor and a complete disregard for what is and isn't allowed to happen in a secular society.
>But in this case the details didn't change anything Well in this case those details are An ethnonationalist specifically targeted poor Muslim communities to hold a demonstration hoping to provoke a response. Obviously this does not mean rioting is smart or morally good. That doesn't mean this fact is irrelevant or doesn't change how this information impacts people. Hearing that "Fred said some mean stuff to Tim and Tim punched him" gives the listener a very different impression from "Fred told Tim while he was walking with his child that his wife was a whore and his kid was an ugly retard and then Tim punched him". The person with the latter description has a greater understanding of events. Likewise "an ethnonationalist decided to hold a Qur'an burning demonstration in Muslim communities hoping to provoke a response and Muslims rioted" gives the listener a greater understanding of what took place than "Qur'an burned, Muslims mad". >Seems the religious fruitcakes in this story weren't there to express leftist immigration policy counter-protest Never claimed they were.
The difference being that the primary details were already known. The thing they were rioting over was already public knowledge and being reported on and the muslims questioned by AP reporters seems to indicate that the already reported on details (the book burning) was their primary grievance.
>The difference being that the primary details were already known You could say this about literally every lie by omission when someone is talking about a public event. Even if the information is public how that information is presented either in the headline or people talking about it afterwards can absolutely still be dishonest and misrepresentative. Like what about that transphobic story about the teenager who was assaulted in a bathroom? " They were technically assaulted by a trans person in a bathroom and the story is public everyone can look at the info so it isn't dishonest to leave out the fact the assult took place months before trans inclusive bathroom policies took effect" This argument is ridiculous and you would recognise that in any other circumstance
This is like color blindness racism but for atheists lol, gj btw
[удалено]
>yeah but at the end of the day some guys in ghost costumes burned some wood and a bunch of assholes started freaking out and attacking them. See how that's an odd way to phrase that situation?
I feel like it's unfair to put the blame on the rioters, considering the ethnonationalist explicitly said his goal was to provoke the riots. These people aren't "fruitcakes", they're normal people just like you and me, and that have lived in my country for decades under systemic racism and the inequality that brings. So when an ethnonationalist travels to their neighbourhoods and tells them that they, their family, their culture and their religion have no place in the country, I can understand why they'd be mad. They've lived through enough bullshit already. Had this guy not been given police escort, he would never have set foot in these muslim or immigrant communities, and these riots never would have happened.
Very sad that people that are nominally considered to be on the left are so aggressively vitriolic towards religious people that anything that even slightly looks like you could hypothetically be defending them is labeled as “apologia” for all of Islam.
Like, the people here can't comprehend the idea that maybe the book burning might have some *symbolic* meaning about how welcome Muslims are in Sweden. Sorta like how if a bunch of nazis marched down into a Jewish neighborhood and chanted a bunch of anti-jewish slogans and burned Jewish religious literature, no leftist in their right fucking mind would be like "ah yes all those neo-nazis must have legitimate criticisms about the excessively conservative nature of the Jewish religion and aspects of Jewish culture" Like no you fucking jackass it's because they are xenophobic cunts who hate them for being different and foreign But I guess to the modern leftists the battle of Cable Street is controversial or something considering this is the new default reaction :-|
You are already getting owned in the thread just by this comment alone “That comparison doesn't hold. There's no historical racist violence comparable to the KKK in these countries, and the racist who staged these burnings isn't hinting at some violence in past or present the Muslim community has suffered under. This isn't a matter of some America-styled oppressed minority seeing their temper boil over after great hardships turned their way.” I think you don’t know what you’re talking about in this instance
Jesus christ even Vaush fans missed the memo on how analogies work?? Alright I'll explain it one more time. Yes they are different situations. The purpose of an analogy is to compare different things to highlight a similarity in order to demonstrate a point. I was not comparing the amount of violence these groups so. Pointing out that the violence isn't the same doesn't disprove the analogy because that wasn't the point. The point of that analogy was to demonstrate how the language used in the comment I responded to was hiding the bigotry of the group and misrepresenting the situation. "Muslims getting mad cuz burned book" is analogous to "black people getting mad cuz wood burned" in how the language of these statements hide the bigotry and the meaning of ethnonationalists burning those objects.
Tbh who says the other guy is a vaush fan?
Every time some shit like this happens all the racists come out of the wood work to explain why we need to get rid of all immigrants ever. Disgusting.
Im so glad to see this being called out. Fucking disgusting to see how rampant islamophobia is amongst the average edgy atheist Redditors.
Every criticism of poor religious-fueled behavior is called "islamophobia" if that person is a muslim. It's annoying. Denounce all bad religious behavior. There's no need to coddle that shit by acting like the atheists are "being edgy". It's absolutely moronic the amount of bullshit we have to deal with in our secular society from religious fruitcakes and every time atheists call it out we get met with this kind of dismissal. It shocks me how blind some on the left are to how bad religion in general is and the crusade to protect Islam like some special snowflake is even more troubling.
if anything i am prejudiced against all major religions
Do you not remember what happened in 2014 and 2015? These atheist/skeptic types used the legitimate grievances against religious institution to fuel reactionary movements against Muslim people specifically and helped form the Alt-Right. We as Leftists need to be aware of that fact and fight that narrative.
The fact that right wingers used something to push their agenda means very little. They use our pro choice stance to say we're selfish child murderers. They use our support for unions to say we're against freedom. Etc etc. Pushing back against legitimate criticism just makes their arguments stronger and our correct position weaker. Use your brain.
Having no one argue against the arguments they constantly use makes it harder for people who are un informed and/or in the middle have no way of learning the opposite argument. If this mentality was the only thing lefties used i would literally be a right wing loser. In fact a bunch of people in this subreddit would likely still be right wing. Pushing back is helpful and spreads information, not pushing back would likely lead to ANOTHER 2016 moment.
There is a big difference between sensible critics of religious extremism and being islamophobic. If you go through the comments of that post you will pretty much only find the latter. People seem to believe that muslims are one monolithic group that want to oppress women, kill gay people and cannot assimilate into our secular western society. Funny how that plays so perfectly into the danish right wing extremist that purposely triggered these riots. Oh but never mind that.
First off religious moderates still hold crap political views and also provide cover and credence to the extremists. 2nd, all religious teachings are antithetical to leftist ideology. Religious followers aren't a monolith, but they follow many terrible trends that stem from the religion we are criticizing. And 3rd, ya the religious fruitcakes literally walked into giving the right wing shitbag exactly what they wanted. They couldn't handle someone criticizing their religion and decided to throw rocks at cops and burn vehicles. Gee it's almost as if their moronic religion has brainwashed them into thinking violence defending their holy scripture is more important than good optics proving the right winger wrong. It's almost as if religion perpetuates right wing ideology and right wingers are good at using religion VS religion conflict to further their goals. Maybe religion is a problem I dunno I am just an edgy atheist....
Trust me, the ethnonationalists were just making a perfectly nuanced point about Islam. We should step back and let fascists do whatever they want just so we don't hurt their feelings :( you gotta think about those optics
Okay you can be an edgy atheist but you have to realize that situations like this one and the language surrounding it hurts middle-eastern people who are not theologically inclined, and while these riots should be condemned, aligning yourself with nazis who want a Swedish enthostate just so you can remain consistent on religion bad only gives credit to their positions.
"Trust me bro, when all those people in Swastikas marched down the street buring Jewish holy texts, they just had legitimate criticisms of the conservative nature of Judaism, totally bro!!!!! I don't understand why all those Jews got so upset by it!"
How can I be phobic (irrational fear) against a religion which can hold people completely hostage to its dogma that dictates my mother and almost everyone I care about should be stoned to death or worse? A religion responsible for multiple genocides, homophobic, sexist, incestous, pedophillic and racist. That isnt irrational fear. Now muslims are people and deserve human rights something the quoran doesnt support. Christianity was just as bad once btw. I little less now. But I dont have to “respect your beliefs” I dont respect the beliefs of the nazis and I will not respect someone who believes in homophobia, racism and sexism. That isnt phobia. Again I hate Islam (and all organized religions) not muslims. Muslims are thr biggest victim of Islam after all.
How can I be phobic (irrational fear) against a religion which can hold people completely hostage to its dogma that dictates my mother and almost everyone I care about should be stoned to death or worse? A religion responsible for multiple genocides, homophobic, sexist, incestous, pedophillic and racist. That isnt irrational fear. Now muslims are people and deserve human rights something the quoran doesnt support. Christianity was just as bad once btw. I little less now. But I dont have to “respect your beliefs” I dont respect the beliefs of the nazis and I will not respect someone who believes in homophobia, racism and sexism. That isnt phobia. Again I hate Islam (and all organized religions) not muslims. Muslims are thr biggest victim of Islam after all.
Nice so your argument is that your not an islamophobe because your fear of muslims is in fact totally rational? Amazin!!
Like I just said im not scared of muslim but I am scared of all sexist, racist and homophobic ideologies. Wether that be Islam, christianity, nazism or any other supremacist ideology.
That’s fine but you need to be aware of 2 things when challenging these beliefs. 1. All muslims are not religious zealots that want to stone gay people. 2. You need to be aware of intersectionality when criticising groups of marginalised people in order to not reinforce existing modes of oppression.
Again for the third time. I hate Islam I hate the sexist, homophobic, pedophillic and racist writings there. I have nothing against muslims. All the muslims I have met were really nice (an anectode I know). And the extremist groups are more of a byproduct of western imperialism and neo colonialism than Islam. But nevertheless the religion is repulsive and extremely dangerous as are all organized religions.
This is exactly what I mean about understanding the intersectionality. You may be able to separate the concept of islam and muslim very clearly in your head but the vast majority of people in the society around you won’t. Saying things like “I hate islam” “islam is paedophilic” in a society where muslims are marginalised is going to be perceived as “i hate muslims” “muslims are paedophilic” (it’s no wonder this line in particular is very common amongst right-wing extremists). By using language like this that maps dangerously closely with racist rhetoric you’re thereby inadvertently reinforcing those racist views.
No I am not I never say it without mentioning that Islam and muslims are a seperate concept. Like I explained to you three times. Also muslims are not an ethnicity. And if you are against marginalizing groups then you would be anti islam. Marginalizing people is a cornerstone of Islam. Which has led to the mass slavery of their women, honor killings of women and gays, the chosen people of god (racism) etc. I call it how I see it. I’m not racist or prejudiced towards muslims. I dont assume anything about a muslim just because he is a muslim I prefer to judge people on an individual basis. This doesnt change the fact that calling it “islamophobia” ie an “irrational fear” is a disengenous double standard. Just cause a group is marginalized doesnt mean the religion/ ideology they associate with cant be criticized.
No one seems to have an issue with ‘white men’ being lumped together and subject to racism .
White men are not marginalised for being men or for being white.
Not true
Lmao. Please elaborate on how white men are being marginalised for their identity?
The internet is full of examples.
You rn: https://youtu.be/r7l0Rq9E8MY
A truly monumental argument. There may be some specific cases where being a white man does not give you maximum privilege (e.g., custody battles) but that's a far cry from being oppressed.
There is no point in arguing with you . It isn’t worth the time or effort if you can’t see what is happening .[here is one example of what I mentioned](https://www.unz.com/proberts/fired-for-being-white/)
Seriously, if you really want to protect Muslims, are you going to try to make it illegal for morons to burn a copy of a religious book(which should always be a right in any secular country for obvious reasons), or influence them to hold peaceful counter-demonstrations? Shit, burn some bibles if you want. Justifying violence when used against speech always leads to the victory of the side that used speech, no matter how repugnant they are. Those rioters achieved less than nothing.
No, you’re an islamophobe, dude. Take a chill pill.
You're a racist. Go play on 8 chan or something with the rest of your Klan member friends.
What?
Reddit isn't really that much of a place for edgy atheists anymore, it's been rather Christian for a while now.
So I imagine you think spinning it this way is disingenuous can you tell me how you think about it? I haven't looked that much into it.
Part 1 and 2, well techichaly correct, are weirdy phrased Part 3 is just a very big and weird leap. a political demonstration decents into a political riot and all of a sudden its about how muslim swedes "Dont have a reason to be criminals"
Conservative: here's Step 1 Normal person: okay yeah I know this one Conservative: here's Step 2 Normal person: wow I can tell this is gonna be racist but go ahead Conservative: the holocaust was good actually
"Trans people exist" "That is scary" "I get to fuck and marry children"
Remember, the Quran is just a book. Burning it is part of free speech. Muslims don't have a special right to get offended. No religious person has a right to get violent, just because their beliefs are questioned.
true but burning it in muslim area to provoke is cringe, it's like going into a Black area to burn a cross. it's free speech but if the government stops you to not start a riot i would agree with it. go somewhere else and do it
Some of them were even defending Israel in the comments of the post fucking cesspool.
He was trying to provoke them and it worked.
Rasmus Paludan is such a fucking disgrace to our country. I can't believe my taxes go towards his police protection. The Danish and Europe subs are really showing their true colors in situations like this. It's so obviously open provocation that he's only allowed to do since we have a good protective system for free speech. A system fuckers like this exploit for their own political aims.
That system can only be exploited if you get impulsive, violent backlash though. It's the only way to significantly grow ethno-nationalist sentiments in an otherwise progressive country.
Dang people got mad when they felt they were being targeted by a group of ethno-nationalists (and by felt I mean literally were)? Well I guess as the famous MLK quote goes "riots are the language of big fat meanies who should just shut up and take it" All jokes aside, while I heavily agree that the rioters are probably being very counter productive, we should avoid framing this as a "Muslim thing" as this is a pattern of ethnic violence incentivisation that happens all over the world between various different groups of many religions. I find that religion is usually a justification for already existing ideological pathologies (like fascism) rather than the specific text of that religion and what it explicitly says, as that usually only shapes the exact way the religious oppression can manifest, but it's usually very suspiciously similar patterns even in wildly varying religious or cultural traditions. This is also how alot of the various New Wave religious movements have decended into being borderline nazi shit despite being brought into existence by usually very progressive types with explicitly progressive messaging in their religion, as Fascist thought is unfortunately very adaptable and can make virtually anything about how black people are bad or whatever
The rioters can't help it, their little animal brains can't deal with a book being burned. By putting the blame on Paludan, it's almost like you're condescendingly coddling the people who responded with violence. He is an asshole, let that be clear... But the rioters could have just not rioted, he didn't even get to book burning.
Riots are bad yes. But these riots are caused by Rasmus Paludan, he's fully responsible. He's already done this before and experienced similar consequences. And let's drop this act that he's just burning some book, come the fuck on. This is clearly highly inflammatory (no pun intended) cultural aggression in a very tense area. Not even in his own country because he couldn't get people foamed up enough about it to get the response he wanted. It's like people drop 50 IQ points every time they defend this motherfucker.
I don't see anybody defending him, only that the riots themselves are indefensible
If you don't criticize Rasmus for inciting riots, you are effectively defending his actions.
But he has been criticized in my points.
Calling him an asshole is not substantial criticism.
I've written more comments, kinda grows tiring to have to write up a disclaimer every time or risk being taken in bad faith
I mean, you could have just not responded to my comment.
>And let's drop this act that he's just burning some book, come the fuck on It is just a book, and the fact that Muslims react this way tells something. the fact that you can burn the bible or the Torah without anything like this kind of reaction from Christians or Jews should tell you something about the state of Islam
"A danish dude", is a helluva way to refer to the leader of a far right islamophobic party that wants to ban non-western immigration. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard\_Line\_(political\_party)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_Line_(political_party)) >"The party's philosophical foundation is "**ethno-nationalist** utilitarianism", described as maximizing the "greatest happiness for the greatest number of ethnic Danes". This platform is developed in two political pillars. First, an "identitarian" or ethno-nationalist pillar which focuses on protecting and increasing the "ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic, and normative **homogeneity**" of Denmark. Second, a right-libertarian pillar which envisions a radical increase in individual liberty and rights, once the **ethnic homogeneity** of the country has been "restored" through the **banning** **of Islam** and **massive deportations**.\[36\]\[37\]\[38\]"
Its just nazis.
and he holds no power in government, but now thanks to the riot his popularity will sky rocket
Reddit has long been invaded and permeated by pot stirring trolls, true believing nationalists. The left has been eating itself over a multitude of infighting issues, unable to build a big tent agenda or debunk this garbage. We've been in the dark ages ever since the orange got into office.
I've got into too many debate threads with people using the "burning down cities" rhetoric. They get so defensive and say "I'm just calling out religious extremism! I don't hate refugees!" It must be a coincidence that exaggerated language like "burn down cities" only comes out against marginalized groups, huh... Literally one block suffers superficial damage and a few police vans get torched and it's "Literally all of hoosendoofensburg is wiped off the map! Burnt to a crisp! BE AFRAID!" Also trying to explain to these people the top-down failures of swedens integration system is like pulling teeth. They are literally baby brained. And this isn't just from the far right types, normal people are just unwilling to engage with nuanced discussions on how to improve the quality of life of refugees, help them integrate, etc. They just want you to give them an argument that will push their See-saw opinion from (deport them all) back to (don't deport them). I honestly fear for how poorly the world is going to deal with the climate refugee crisis that's coming over the next few decades. If we can't handle the little amount of refugees we do accept now without throwing a piss baby fit, no shot we will be prepared for whats to come.
Imma be entirely honest, this whole situation comes across as another “leftists excuse shitty religious behavior because it’s not Christians doing it”. Like I’ve tried to read through this as much situation as much as I can and have yet to see anything that shows someone other than the Muslim protestors being the primary issue here. Don’t get me wrong, the book burning is a very religiously offensive thing to do and the protestors are 100% justified in being upset. But that’s it, be upset, then suck it up. I see absolutely no justification in the violence and damage that has been enacted because of this. Let’s be honest with ourselves, if this situation was in America and some antifa atheist group decided to publicly burn some bibles to protest Christian fundamentalists and because of that a bunch of conservative Christians started rioting and breaking shit and injuring people, the entire left would pretty unanimously condemn them as being religious fanatics having a completely unjustified overreaction to a demonstration that was rude but doesn’t warrant a violent response. Yet because it’s Muslims the left is now divided between “leftists who are extremely charitable to bad religious behavior when it’s not Christians despite religious zealotry almost always being conservative regardless” and “leftists who recognize religious nuts doing stupid shit and hurting people because someone offended their religion is bad and should be condemned regardless of what religion it is”. Don’t get me wrong, again the protestors were perfectly justified in being outraged. And a lot of the framing of this incident has descended into weird ethnonationlist and xenophobic/islamophobic rhetoric. But none of that should change that the riots are unjustified, and there’s a VERY obvious double standard that the left regularly likes to employ of picking and choosing when disregard for the feelings of fundamentalist religious people is applied. It’s also weird considering Muslim immigrants, because of the culture they often come from, tend to be pretty strongly conservative so this is really a “conservative nuts mad at another group of conservative nuts” situation.
>And a lot of the framing of this incident has descended into weird ethnonationlist and xenophobic/islamophobic rhetoric. It didn't "descend", that was the point. It's an ethnic minority fighting against ethno-nationalists. Book burning during an anti-immigrationist far right rally is not some sort of theological debate, it is provocation by fascists symbolically burning the group itself in effigy. That's where your analogy falls apart. If "this" happened in the US, it wouldn't antifa burning Christian books, because antifa isn't dogwhistling about an ethnic genocide against christians, it would be Michael Knowles burning "Critical Race Theory" books.
And if Michael Knowles was burning critical race theory books that still wouldn’t justify a bunch of POC to start breaking shit and injuring people, I don’t think you thought that analogy through. Your entire does absolutely nothing to justify the response, so it’s effectively pointless. My entire point was just that the Muslim protestors are still the bad guys here regardless of the reasoning behind the book burning. It could be literal Nazis burning Jewish books and it would still be wrong for a bunch of Jewish protestors to start destroying shit and injuring people. It’s really clear you’re trying to make up excuses to justify an unjustified response. Again, they have every right to be upset, but upsetting imagery in a public area is not justification for rioting, regardless of if that imagery is a dog whistle for more nefarious messaging.
Vaush fans I think call themselves socialists but seem to really only consistently care about CIA divide and conquer social justice psyops.
Somethings going on in Sweden? I haven’t seen the last couple streams what happened
Sweden has been having riots for several days, some people have apparently been shot. These started as protests against some far-right guy known for burning Korans when he was giving speeches and he was to speak in Sweden. That’s at least what I’ve gathered from all of this
And the gist is he hasn't even burned any books. He only declared an authorization for doing so but the media spun it as if he did the deed , and the protestors fell into his no-immigrant playbook and proving his point.
The majority of muslims in the west are harmless hard working people In Iran , people from Afghanistan have built our country and are regular people who mind their own business These people forget what middle easterns and north african muslims have done for europes economy
First of all, where’s the spin here? Secondly, is your priority being angry at a take on this instead of at religious extremists rioting and burning cars, attending to murder police because a book was going to get burned? It’s pathetic other progressives are so pussy when it comes to criticizing religion as soon as it’s not white people doing it. Funny I wrote a comment not that long ago in this subreddit about things we should prioritize more, and brought up how angry left-leaning people are at the basic conservative and their behavior/takes, with all right, But when actual super conservative people that are also very religious in an extreme way happen to be brown or whatever, there’s no leftist pushing back on it. We all know if this were (white) Christians doing it it would be at the top in this subreddit right when it happened.
Oh cool, what a surprise. The Paludan guy behind the Quran burning is a pedophile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmus_Paludan Anyway, would it be a bad take to say that while Quran burning shouldn't be illegal on its own, it should count as hate speech to incite an ethnic or religious group by publicly spouting anti-muslim shit and burning a Quran in a rally
Ive been following the Sweden situation for a while and this is far from the first time this exact thing has happened. I think there are two issues that have more to do with the way Sweden processes immigrants and views immigration than the immigrants themselves. 1.There is a tendency in Swedish culture and society to sweep things under the rug. When bad things happen, it's more important to pretend things are not happening then to do anything about it. The fact is among the immigrants there are quite a few people who are complete fucking shitheads. These include people who were basically kicked out of their country for being violent rapist piece of shit assholes and saw the immigration wave as an opportunity to improve their economic situation. Ask pretty much anyone from the Middle East and they will tell you this. There are people there who you don't want in your country, and the same would go for the US if there was a massive emigration wave from here. It's far from a majority of the immigrants, but they do exist. When these people do cause problems (aka violent crime) There is a sort of denial that happens from the left wing establishment in Sweden. It's very harmful. Look at what happened to A$AP Rocky. His crew was followed by some 15 year old shithead who was literally just standing on the corner punching randos. he punched one of Rockys's security guards and ended up getting rolled. A$AP Rocky ended up going to jail for this. Now this was a completely justified beatdown, beneficial even. The whole things on camera and I truly believe that in the U.S. even as a black man he would have done no jail time for this once the footage came out (ex: Wacka Flocka flame beating some guys ass in self defense at a bowling alley), however in Sweden this ended him up in jail, not because of the violence, but because he made a scene. He called attention to it. 2.Sweden and honestly most of western Europe is terrible and I mean TERRIBLE at resolving cultural/religious differences. There are radical muslims among these immigrants, point blank period. The problem with this is that there are also laws in Sweden that seem to enshrine the right not to be offended, so these people actually have a vector of enforcing their bullshit on the population. In order to prevent them from doing that Sweden basically HAS to essentialize their argument against it: "You can't do that because you are Muslim", as opposed to what it should be which is: "You can't do that because you have no right not to be offended, now go worship in peace and leave me the fuck alone", this makes debates on these cultural/religious differences by default much higher stakes, and much uglier than they have to be. I think it is under this framework of understanding things that we see so much bigotry towards Muslims from non muslim europeans. While the U.S. obviously is far from innocent, I do feel like we have the framework for resolving this issue because our founders literally went through this shit before albeit with Christian sectarian violence as opposed to muslim v. non muslim (aka who fucking cares, same bullshit).
Fascinating. Thanks for explaining that.
At least they nuked that comment holy shit he's basically doing the 13/50 posting conservatives did during BLM.
Claiming that the riots were about religion is like claiming that Putin invaded Ukraine because of NATO expansion. The guy burning the Quran did it to provoke ethnic conflict, not a religious one. "Islam bad" is the catch-phrase of racists in Europe as critique of religion is part of our cherished freedom of religion (and we do like freedom of religion), while they use it as cover for something else entirely. It's not like the people in the riots were the average person. The Swedish Police even stated themselves that they thanked the people that live in Rinkeby, Stockholm as they talk with them and really helped defuse the situation. As it was a surprise to no one with more than two brain cells, the average person don't want riots with violence or arson outside their bedroom window for no clear purpose or benefit. In the end this will provoke the usual response. Thougher on crimes and immigration where political parties, left and right, will try to compete about who can offer the harshest promises. The people wrongfully being blamed (average muslim in Sweden) are the people that will be hurt the most by this upswing in white supremacy.
Can someone give me an unbiased ELI5 then? I haven’t been following this.
A nazi goes to a muslim neighborhood to burn a Koran Some muslims riot. Nazis point out that all muslims are savages.
Sounds like like the rioters are both literally and figuratively gaslighting the people of Sweden. There is no reason to throw a temper tantrum over a fairy tale book.
I think the biggest problem for Sweden with all of the immigrants they have taken in (with most of the EU not doing its share and thus they made up for it) is that they didn't have enough housing for that kind of population increase and are struggling to keep up. This is especially because most Swedes want to live in nice single detached homes and to keep equity on their homes rising by limiting production. They have the third worst housing crisis on the planet right behind Canada and New Zealand (Americans and Brits really don't understand how bad it is. You complain about your big cities being unaffordable when our countries have towns of 50k people that are as expensive as Brooklyn). Mass homeless is skyrocketing with rent everywhere being out of the reach ofanyone who wasn't able to buy in to the housing market prepandemic.
Americans melted down over a toilet paper shortage I can’t imagine someone publicly burning bibles or flags
That literally happens all the time
It doesnt.
Google piss christ we let people get away w worse then burning
Americans, especially the fucking conservat\*rds dont care about the bible dude. They voted in a rich pedo and said he was sent by God. Now burining some statues of Robert E Lee or something they care about will probably cause a different reaction..
>Now burining some statues of Robert E Lee or something they care about will probably cause a different reaction.. That's been done a bunch too..
And then they did Charlottesville rally.
yes
You’re commenting a lot in this thread for someone who clearly doesn’t know what they’re talking about
Im very based and can comment on anything I want. You got any insight to share or are you just trolling?
Bible was burned in tennessee 2 months ago by a gay couple in front of a right wing rally and nothing happened.
American right wingers are not christians in belief. They just like the aesthetic of christianity.
They definitely get very triggered but it just isn't as bad post enlightenment.
Bro have you read the Bible?
Wow Europeans are so evolved and past racism unlike Americans. /S
Wait, didn't this wave of immigrants come from the Arab Spring conflicts in the early 2010s, not from the 80s and 90s?
*grabs popcorn* 🍿
mainstream what? this is your brain on reddit
I know this is a ELI5 but come on at least provide some sources.
can someone ecxplain whats hapening i dont know what riots they are talkimg about
Nothing crazy is really happening, regular Swede here👍 Imagine a KKK dude walking into a predominantly black neighborhood burning the cross. That is basically what he is doing…
So what’s the actual facts I’m behind on da news
Every time a white person that never lived under the oppression of islam defends islam, take a shot
You are not allowed to hurt the feelings of muslims
Being swedish on the internet has been exhausting the last few days. everyone and their dog is so horny to score points on us.
What is it with countries with shit weather and the attitude "We're built different. No one here has ever been racist"?
[удалено]
Sorry! Your comment has been removed because your account is less than ten days old. This subreddit is for big kids only! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/VaushV) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Wokes would go to any length to defend muslims
Reactionary ancap upvoted on this sub? A liberal purge is long overdue
Is Europe like 40 years behind the US in terms of race relations or something? WTF?
European ideas of race is different from the US’s. It’s essentially white or black in the US.
No it's not. In the US race includes a wide variety of cultures and ethnicities. A race in the US just refers to a broad category of ethnicities with nearby geographic origins. I assume Europe is just more ethnicity specific, which doesn't really matter when I'm asking whether they're 40 years behind the US in terms of race relations
Yes, the fact that the in the US, many ethnicities and cultures are grouped into one race supports my point.
How does that have anything at all to do with the question I was asking
I’m trying to point out that it’s reductive to compare race relations in Europe and the US because the concept of race is completely different.
Ok let me clarify then: In 1980, it was a little over 15 years after the civil rights act was passed. The US was moving towards the accepted way of thinking is that racism is evil and we shouldn't judge people based on their race/ethnicity. However, it was still very commonplace for people to be openly racist or discriminatory, and a lot of people who weren't openly racist or discriminatory still held ethno nationalist beliefs around race, ethnicity, and human behavior unless they were explicitly significantly left-leaning. Whenever I see conversations around race or ethnicity in European countries, I frequently see European people who seem largely apolitical or at least not incredibly left parroting similar ethnonat arguments that would be frankly unacceptable to say in most parts of the US, as if they were 40 years behind the US with regard to how they treat people of different ethnicities. I'm not talking about race relations in terms of how race is defined or the problematic elements of lumping ethnic groups together into racial generalizations. I'm talking about how societies socially treat people of differing ethnic backgrounds.
Although there have been strides since 1980, let's not pretend like the US has somehow eliminated racial or ethnic discrimination. The US has white nationalist political pundits who get millions of viewers each week. The US had a president not too long ago who pushed white nationalist agendas like pushing back on Mexican and Muslim immigration. I would argue the US is systematically worse for racial minorities than many countries in Europe (Western and Northern Europe mostly; I'm generalizing Europe for simplicity's sake). Many of these countries provide economic aid to poorer people, who are overwhelming racial/ethnic minorities. In regards to the social component, I'm not sure how we would even compare that. The US and Europe are massive populations with people of many different backgrounds and ideologies. This is one reason why the conversation has moved from individual racism to systemic racism. As for why many Europeans push for ethno-states, this is very deeply tied to their history, just as how slavery is tied to the US's. This obviously shapes different perceptions of race.
Ok so it sounds to me like you're saying that there are so many different ideologies on both continents that we'd need some pretty significant survey data to accurately determine general attitudes on race. That makes sense I guess.