Is anti-theocracy considered a "far right" position, e.g. the Netherlands

[ImmortalFlame]

Theocracy and bad economics tend to go hand in hand these days - unless your country happens to be blessed with lots and lots of oil.

That's... not really a response to literally anything I wrote.

Do you understand my argument?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

you're making a couple of assumptions there that i'm not claiming.

but let me ask you, why is it that muslim majority countries tend to be poor unless they have oil? I think culture and economics are a part of a system.

Are you aware of how many assumptions that question contains? Do you have any statistics that show that Muslim majority countries are, on average, notably poorer than countries with majorities of other faiths, or that Islam in any way contributes to a lack of wealth?

If your assumption is that being from a poor country must indicate that you hold values that contribute to "bad economical outcomes", then I have no idea why you would focus on Islam. You might as well just be arguing that states should not be allowing in anybody from a poor country. I have a feeling you either are unaware of the implications of your argument, or your argument is just a smokescreen for ethno-nationalism.

I mean, ethno-nationalist states tend to be poor. I think all wealthy countries should therefore deport all their ethno-nationalists and not allow them in. That makes more sense than your assumptions do.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Geert Wilders recently won a big election in the Netherlands based on his positions that Islamic immigration to the Netherlands must be stopped. In this video and others, Wilders is called "far right". So does that mean that being against theocracy is now a "far right" stance?

No.

What makes him "far right" is his blatant racism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He is against an Islamic theocracy.

He is against Islam, full stop.
He is against immigrants, full stop.
He is a racist, islamophobe, populist, nationalist.

He's a species of neo-nazi.

Yes, to your question I think it is correct to consider the Christian far right to be against theocracy if that theocracy is Islamic. And the Islamic far right would equally be opposed to a Christian theocracy.

And secular democrats are against any form of theocracy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My country is based upon the principle of jus sanguinis.
That is, citizenship is based upon the right of the blood: the citizenship, nationality are a reflex of people's DNA.
In fact, if a Brazilian citizen demonstrates that they have Italian DNA, they can claim Italian citizenship. And they can obtain it very easily.
Is that racism?

Reminds of one of the requirements to be able to become a made member of La Cosa Nostra

 

[icehorse]

No.

What makes him "far right" is his blatant racism.

Are you somehow equating harsh criticisms of Islam with being racist?

 

[icehorse]

Are you aware of how many assumptions that question contains? Do you have any statistics that show that Muslim majority countries are, on average, notably poorer than countries with majorities of other faiths, or that Islam in any way contributes to a lack of wealth?

If your assumption is that being from a poor country must indicate that you hold values that contribute to "bad economical outcomes", then I have no idea why you would focus on Islam. You might as well just be arguing that states should not be allowing in anybody from a poor country. I have a feeling you either are unaware of the implications of your argument, or your argument is just a smokescreen for ethno-nationalism.

I mean, ethno-nationalist states tend to be poor. I think all wealthy countries should therefore deport all their ethno-nationalists and not allow them in. That makes more sense than your assumptions do.

Do just a tiny, tiny bit of homework and stop using strawmen.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do just a tiny, tiny bit of homework and stop using strawmen.

There's not a single strawman in that post. Just a few clear questions of your logic and some very simple extrapolations of your reasoning that show how poor it is.

If you can't support your position, maybe you shouldn't hold it.

 

[icehorse]

There's not a single strawman in that post. Just a few clear questions of your logic and some very simple extrapolations of your reasoning that show how poor it is.

If you can't support your position, maybe you shouldn't hold it.

not my job to do all the heavy lifting for you

 

[ImmortalFlame]

not my job to do all the heavy lifting for you

You mean, like providing an argument in response to your posts rather than just waving away all the arguments in a single sentence that pretends the argument is a "stawman" because you can't actually support your own positions?

I'm doing the heavy lifting. You have yet to start on the lightweights.

 

[icehorse]

You mean, like providing an argument in response to your posts rather than just waving away all the arguments in a single sentence that pretends the argument is a "stawman" because you can't actually support your own positions?

I'm doing the heavy lifting. You have yet to start on the lightweights.

no, you started by asking for easily findable stats, sigh. it's not my job to bring you up to speed. if you were debating in good faith and heard something you didn't know, you would take the time to do just a tiny bit of research. it's something I do all the time on this forum. But like many posters, you take the lazy way out and lead with your ignorance.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

no, you started by asking for easily findable stats, sigh.

Correct, I asked a question about what facts support your claims.

You have yet to provide them. Which is interesting.

it's not my job to bring you up to speed.

It's your job to support your claims.

if you were debating in good faith and heard something you didn't know, you would take the time to do just a tiny bit of research.

Or, I could ask you, because you made the claim and I might not have access to your sources, or I might find different sources that may not say the exact same thing, or I might find other sources that provide contrary info.

So, what are your sources?

it's something I do all the time on this forum. But like many posters, you take the lazy way out and lead with your ignorance.

Well, that's one way to get out of providing any actual facts whatsoever.

You're incredibly easy to see through. Do you ever have any facts to support your arguments, or do you just start at an assumption and wing it?

 

[icehorse]

You're incredibly easy to see through

You're incredibly easy to see thru. Instead of knowing about a topic, all you have to do is demand citations. (But it's a common tactic on RF, so I can see how you think it's acceptable.)

So the question becomes: when is it reasonable to ask for citations?

Most posters on RF know each other only thru these posts. But I can tell you that I don't make stuff up. You have no way of knowing that, but it's true. So I'm raising the bar. I'm not interested in educating you (or anyone), on easily findable data.

I've decided that it's often quite arrogant and self-centered for posters to demand citations. As if the demander somehow knows what's common knowledge, and what's not. nonsense.

If asking for citations was rare, I might feel differently. But it's sooooo common on RF, that it seems to have become a way to try to obfuscate debates.

With all that said, I'll give you a hint: Islam is - by its very definition - a totalitarian ideology. If we take Muslims at their word - which we ought to - the totalitarian nature of Islam is self evident. In poll after poll, a large percentage of Muslims living in Europe want to bring Sharia to Europe. The numbers are frequently in the 40% or 50% range. Sharia is, again by definition, a strong component of a totalitarian ideology.

Why do you think Europe is being flooded with Muslim immigrants? Isn't it blindingly obvious that these people are fleeing mostly failed states? And in case you're going to cry "colonizers", no, I'm not buying it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you somehow equating harsh criticisms of Islam with being racist?

No. I'm just extremely aware of who the douche is and what he stands for and what kind of scum he surrounds himself with.
The Netherlands is only 30 km's away of where I live, you know. We speak the same language.

We have "politicians" like him in Belgium also. They are great friends.
The Islamophobia is merely an easy means for them to gather votes in populistic fashion. Their actual hatred runs much deeper.

You seem to have no idea.

 

[icehorse]

No. I'm just extremely aware of who the douche is and what he stands for and what kind of scum he surrounds himself with.
The Netherlands is only 30 km's away of where I live, you know. We speak the same language.

We have "politicians" like him in Belgium also. They are great friends.
The Islamophobia is merely an easy means for them to gather votes in populistic fashion. Their actual hatred runs much deeper.

You seem to have no idea.

If you read the OP carefully it was a criticism of the journalists. Wilders might well be a racist, although Islam is not a race. But the journalist limited his criticisms of Wilders to his stances on Muslim immigration - hence the thread.

I'm curious to know what you mean when you say "Islamophobia". To me, it is a fundamentally dishonest term.

Given that you didn't read the OP carefully, I wonder what makes you think you can determine my understanding of the topic. I find in general that criticizing woke ideas like the "oppressed vs. oppressor" worldview tends to illicit personal attacks. To me, this speaks volumes about the quality of ideas the woke are defending.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If you read the OP carefully it was a criticism of the journalists. Wilders might well be a racist, although Islam is not a race. But the journalist limited his criticisms of Wilders to his stances on Muslim immigration - hence the thread.

His populist political campaign does not exist in a vaccuum. There's a whole history there, which you don't seem to know about.

I'm curious to know what you mean when you say "Islamophobia". To me, it is a fundamentally dishonest term.

When you organize quran burnings, you are not merely protesting against a minority of muslims who adhere to a radical islam.
Islamophobia is when you are against anything and everything that is islamic for the sole reason of it being islamic. He had proposals to literally ban the quran, like literally make it illegal, and close any and all mosques.

To then say or insinuate that he is merely against fundamentalist jihadists is the epitome of either dishonesty or ignorance.

Given that you didn't read the OP carefully, I wonder what makes you think you can determine my understanding of the topic.

I did read the OP. I also read your other replies. This is not my first tango with Wilders defenders / supporters.
Again, I'm well aware of the dude and his scumbag collegues.

Yes, he is far right. Yes, he is a racist. Yes, he is an islamophobe.

I find in general that criticizing woke ideas like the "oppressed vs. oppressor" worldview tends to illicit personal attacks. To me, this speaks volumes about the quality of ideas the woke are defending.

I'm anything but woke.

 

[icehorse]

His populist political campaign does not exist in a vaccuum. There's a whole history there, which you don't seem to know about.

You're inferring much more in the OP than I intended.

So what's your definition of a populist, and why is it a bad thing?

When you organize quran burnings, you are not merely protesting against a minority of muslims who adhere to a radical islam.
Islamophobia is when you are against anything and everything that is islamic for the sole reason of it being islamic. He had proposals to literally ban the quran, like literally make it illegal, and close any and all mosques.

To then say or insinuate that he is merely against fundamentalist jihadists is the epitome of either dishonesty or ignorance.

Sorry, let me rephrase my question: IN GENERAL how do you define Islamophobia? You brought the term into the discussion and I'd like to know your definition. I've already said that I think the term is fundamentally dishonest, but I'd like to know your definition?

I did read the OP. I also read your other replies. This is not my first tango with Wilders defenders / supporters.
Again, I'm well aware of the dude and his scumbag collegues.

Yes, he is far right. Yes, he is a racist. Yes, he is an islamophobe.

Again, the clue is in the title of the OP.

So what does "far right" mean to you? And do you think harsh criticisms of Islam are racist and/or Islamophobic?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what's your definition of a populist, and why is it a bad thing?

It is fundamentally anti-social as it focusses on an "us versus them" attitude and generally seeks to gather support by inticing enmity / hostility to the "them" group. Most populists will also shamelessly tell lies or skew / misrepresent the truth to further that exact goal.

Sorry, let me rephrase my question: IN GENERAL how do you define Islamophobia?

I think you can derive that pretty well from what I wrote. It's when you exhibit allergic reactions, figuratively speaking, to anything islamic merely for it being islamic.

I've already said that I think the term is fundamentally dishonest

What's dishonest about it?
How for example is it NOT islamophobic to demonize islam by organizing quran burnings and making proposals to make the quran and mosques illegal accross the board?

Again, the clue is in the title of the OP.

The problem is that it doesn't tell the whole story of this douche bag.
I think the whole story matters.

So what does "far right" mean to you?

It's a political spectrum which in the west includes things like islamophobia, homophobia, ultra-nationalism, ultra-conservatism, facism, etc.

And do you think harsh criticisms of Islam are racist and/or Islamophobic?

That's far too vague to answer as it depends on the actual content of the criticism as well as the delivery.
In the case of Wilders: absolutely.

 

[icehorse]

It is fundamentally anti-social as it focusses on an "us versus them" attitude and generally seeks to gather support by inticing enmity / hostility to the "them" group. Most populists will also shamelessly tell lies or skew / misrepresent the truth to further that exact goal.

If we go with that definition, then Islam is sort of a poster child for populism.

I think you can derive that pretty well from what I wrote. It's when you exhibit allergic reactions, figuratively speaking, to anything islamic merely for it being islamic.

By that definition the term islamophobic would virtually never be appropriate. For example Islam purports to encourage charity, and I'm sure Wilders is okay with charity, no?

I think it's generally used in an attempt to curtail any criticism of Muslims. I've been called "islamophobic" many times on this forum because I'm extremely critical of many of the core ideas of Islam. But I'm a fan of charity

How for example is it NOT islamophobic to demonize islam by organizing quran burnings and making proposals to make the quran and mosques illegal accross the board?

I'm not a fan of book burning in general, but some books really are evil and I can see how a symbolic burning of such books - in the correct context - could be a useful exercise. For example, I think we need to keep Mein Kampf around, and never forget it. And I can see how - as a protest against anti-semitism - a symbolic burning of Mein Kampf might make sense.

To be honest, the mindless, uncritical support of the Quran is - IMO - very dangerous. Not that many years ago Muslims around the world reacted violently to cartoons. And more recently Islamic terrorists murdered magazine employees in France. This can all be traced directly to instructions in the Quran. So I think that symbolic burning of the Quran (and probably the OT as well), isn't categorically a bad idea.

So here it seems you're changing your own definition of Islamophobia a bit, no?

The problem is that it doesn't tell the whole story of this douche bag.
I think the whole story matters.

But it wasn't the point of the OP - which I should know since I created it

The so-called "journalist" I linked to used ONLY Wilders' anti-Islam stance to label him far-right. Well I'm strongly anti-Islam and I'm a moderate, enlightenment-loving liberal.

So I take umbrage at the notion that being critical of Islam is a far-right stance

 

[Koldo]

you're making a couple of assumptions there that i'm not claiming.

but let me ask you, why is it that muslim majority countries tend to be poor unless they have oil? I think culture and economics are a part of a system.

Because being a poor country is the norm if you are not in Europe.