Should Germany censor anti-migrant hate speech in light of Cologne provocative sexual assaults?

[serp777]

Who knows, if Donald trump loses in the United States maybe he can try and run for some European country. he could then work on getting Assad to pay for a wall to prevent the syrian people from coming into Europe.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

the left does have a problem on this. we probably have to stop talking about "Islam" and talk about "Arabs" instead. it shows that this is a race issue not a religious one and emphasises the possibility of a secular identity and movement in the middle east, rather than implicitly accept the judgement that that whole region is intrisncally religious. we have failed on this and use rhetoric of anti-imperialism to defend ISIL and co./QUOTE]

I suspect I'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say here, so please bear with me. (Grrrr! )

It looks like you're saying that the left has a problem with shielding Islam from criticism by casting said criticism as 'racist' - that to get round this we have to stop referring to the problem as religious and refer to it as a racial one. That is to say, criticise Arabs, not Islam.

That seems like it will only make the problem worse - the left needs to recognise that, irrespective of the racist elements using it as a cover, there are legitimate concerns and problems with Islam that we and the Muslim world need to recognise & address if they are going to fix them and civilise Islam so that it is compatible with a modern world.

If you've said something different to what I think you have then I apologise for jumping the gun.

 

[gsa]

the left does have a problem on this. we probably have to stop talking about "Islam" and talk about "Arabs" instead. it shows that this is a race issue not a religious one and emphasises the possibility of a secular identity and movement in the middle east, rather than implicitly accept the judgement that that whole region is intrisncally religious. we have failed on this and use rhetoric of anti-imperialism to defend ISIL and co.

The problem is that the left accuses non-racist critics of Islam of racism, and also tends to conflate the separate if intersecting issues of racism, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias, and "Islamophobia," a vague term that itself conflates criticism of a religion with hostility to individual adherents of that religion. This is the result of non-Marxist radical influences that have created alternative explanatory frameworks for social and political analysis that rely on social privilege as opposed to class conflict, as well as an anti-imperialist tendency that refuses to criticize or otherwise downplays non-Western forms of oppression. In this way, marginalized groups are free from the kinds of critiques applicable to those that are dominant in (Western) society.

The net result is a leftist political insistence that Muslims are victims, never perpetrators, oppressed, never oppressors. To sustain this fantasy narrative, Islam is drained of any ideological content and a mix of Western (neo) colonialism, racism and imperialism is used to explain virtually everything that is wrong with Muslim majority regions. Islamism? An oppressed people responding to Western colonialism. Jihadists? The result of Western Cold War interventions. The Arab street? An orientalist media stereotype. And so on.

The absurdity of this position is best illustrated by choosing unpopular historical Western antagonists and using the same language to oppose the liberal (or just humanist) critique of these societies.

Example 1: Allied opposition to Nazi Germany is the result of Allied imperialist aggression and denial of German dignity and self-determination. It overlooks the natural Nazi reaction to a privileged ethnoreligious minority that for hundreds of years was allied with feudal rulers against the peasant class, and is now widely perceived as colluding with financiers to destroy the German economy and way of life, driving them into poverty with the assistance of Germany's military and political opponents in England, France and the United States. It also overlooks the genuine concern for the German diaspora in surrounding countries, threatened by dominant ethnic groups. Yes, a lot of the content of Nazi ideology is bad and false, but their racism reflects a failure of the Allies to recognize the legitimate grievances that Germans have following the imposition of disastrous, crippling sanctions at the conclusion of World War I, which devastated the German way of life.

I will save example 2 (the American South as a cultural and economic unit preserving a distinct way of life threatened by wage slavery and the aggression of an industrializing elite North) for another time. It is sufficient to say, for now, that I think that the left's narrative here is simply wrong and a betrayal of the Enlightenment values it should be representing.

 

[Kirran]

'The left' is far from homogeneous. Saying 'the left' has these views is like 'Muslims' support capital punishment for apostasy or something. Not uncommon, but in no way close to universal.

 

[Laika]

suspect I'm misinterpreting what you're trying to say here, so please bear with me. (Grrrr! )

It looks like you're saying that the left has a problem with shielding Islam from criticism by casting said criticism as 'racist' - that to get round this we have to stop referring to the problem as religious and refer to it as a racial one. That is to say, criticise Arabs, not Islam.

That seems like it will only make the problem worse - the left needs to recognise that, irrespective of the racist elements using it as a cover, there are legitimate concerns and problems with Islam that we and the Muslim world need to recognise & address if they are going to fix them and civilise Islam so that it is compatible with a modern world.

If you've said something different to what I think you have then I apologise for jumping the gun.

no. you got me spot on. we have to keep in mind that the propensity to religious fundamentalism is not unique to Islam. Christianity is just as bad. Buddhism even has it's share of skeletons in the closet (such as Japanese Kamakaziis and the Samurai). The moment we stop talking about people's beliefs and start talking about the people themselves, we break a barrier on what we think it is possible to change.

By framing it as a conflict between Islam and the West, we turn it into a ridiciously abstract "clash of civilisations" that is by definition insoluable. But start thinking about the Middle East as a region, as a centre for oil supplies on which the west relies on, and how the politics of oil and development becomes rationalised in religious belief, we might get somewhere. its defeatism to think this is about Islam. we can create secular, liberal, democractic countries in the Middle East, and that is ultimately what we want. it's imperialism plain and simple, and should we really have to apologise for it? we've done it around the world a hundred times before. but before we can tackle whether that is the right or even a workable solution we have to admit that the problem isn't "Muslims". maybe then we won't keep propping up the very dictatorships whose abuses radicalise ordinary people in the region. If the US stops paying the regions "tough guys" to shoot protesters, may then they'll start taking "freedom and democracy" as ideals seriously. if we want a secular middle east- we have to frame the debate so that it is actually a possibility. Liberals don't hate religion. they secularise it and take the sting of fundamentalism out of it.

The problem is that the left accuses non-racist critics of Islam of racism, and also tends to conflate the separate if intersecting issues of racism, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias, and "Islamophobia," a vague term that itself conflates criticism of a religion with hostility to individual adherents of that religion. This is the result of non-Marxist radical influences that have created alternative explanatory frameworks for social and political analysis that rely on social privilege as opposed to class conflict, as well as an anti-imperialist tendency that refuses to criticize or otherwise downplays non-Western forms of oppression. In this way, marginalized groups are free from the kinds of critiques applicable to those that are dominant in (Western) society.

The net result is a leftist political insistence that Muslims are victims, never perpetrators, oppressed, never oppressors. To sustain this fantasy narrative, Islam is drained of any ideological content and a mix of Western (neo) colonialism, racism and imperialism is used to explain virtually everything that is wrong with Muslim majority regions. Islamism? An oppressed people responding to Western colonialism. Jihadists? The result of Western Cold War interventions. The Arab street? An orientalist media stereotype. And so on.

The absurdity of this position is best illustrated by choosing unpopular historical Western antagonists and using the same language to oppose the liberal (or just humanist) critique of these societies.

Example 1: Allied opposition to Nazi Germany is the result of Allied imperialist aggression and denial of German dignity and self-determination. It overlooks the natural Nazi reaction to a privileged ethnoreligious minority that for hundreds of years was allied with feudal rulers against the peasant class, and is now widely perceived as colluding with financiers to destroy the German economy and way of life, driving them into poverty with the assistance of Germany's military and political opponents in England, France and the United States. It also overlooks the genuine concern for the German diaspora in surrounding countries, threatened by dominant ethnic groups. Yes, a lot of the content of Nazi ideology is bad and false, but their racism reflects a failure of the Allies to recognize the legitimate grievances that Germans have following the imposition of disastrous, crippling sanctions at the conclusion of World War I, which devastated the German way of life.

I will save example 2 (the American South as a cultural and economic unit preserving a distinct way of life threatened by wage slavery and the aggression of an industrializing elite North) for another time. It is sufficient to say, for now, that I think that the left's narrative here is simply wrong and a betrayal of the Enlightenment values it should be representing.

yes, but go further east and you'll see that the Soviet Union spent 70 years trying to crush religion in the very same regions which are now using religion as a tool to rationalise a system of government. many aspects of "Islamist" ideology borrow directly from the Soviets. we can't win by attacking Islam as a whole. we are not going to burn down mosques, kill muslims in court yards for everyone to see, and rip qurans up in people's faces and then force our ideology down their throats and expect them to love big brother as we torture their freinds and family. we should stop pretending we are. when we do- we set the stage for people like Trump to stand up an play the role of "strong leaders" and then are puzzled when we think it's fascist. the country where all this mess started was Afghanistan, and the Soviets tried to secularise it by force for over a decade. they failed and now we're suffering the consequeces of it.

this is not some "good versus evil" battle with the west on oneside and muslims on another. the nazis were not the measure of evil and we have to stop kidding ourselves about how and mighty we are. We declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but not Russia. We were allied to the Soviets as they deported large sections of the their own population as "enemy nationalities" and we turned a blind eye. Britian let Indians in Bengal starve to death in the cause of the war to feed their own country. We fire bombed German and Japanese cities, and then finished with hiroshima and nagasaki. we don't call them war crimes because we rationalise it as "military necessity" but its a lie and we know it. national socialism was not unique but the logial conclusion of western colonial attitudes, and christian anti-semitism. the Nazis drafted their Euthanasia laws based on their admiration for the Americans laws. our enlightenment values tell us to tell the truth- and the truth is ugly. but we shouldn't be afriad of it as the truth is the only reliable source of power in the long-run.

The Nazis won in Germany because they had ideals. they gave germans a sense of national pride. they stood up and took the lead whilst others dithered. they weren't better. they weren't even close. Hitler was an idiot and his ideals were from the gutters of vienna. But they played on people's fear in a country on the verge of ruin and people wanted to believe them. that's why they got as far as they did. it wasn't hard. people wanted to know they had a future- and they turned to the loudest most provokative voice in the room. Now, we have Islamists and people want to believe them to. And all the while, the Western world is quielty going to hell as more and more people say "we want a strong leader" when all they'll get it a bigot who looks good on TV.

seperate the people from their leaders and you have a chance. as long as you treat every german as a nazi and every muslim as a terrorist, they will close ranks and we'll lose.

 

[SkylarHunter]

[QUOTE="columbus, post: 4578119, member: 52258"
I am happy to share my country with people who move here to share the benefits of my imperfect, but excellent, culture. I expect them to assimilate. I have a big problem with people who want to leave a culture and also bring it with them.

I'm not European, so I am fine with being corrected.
It looks to me like European countries are accepting immigrants who don't like European culture and will abuse the freedom and prosperity European culture affords. But it is politically incorrect to be honest and accurate about that. So many European people are losing patience with the governments.
Tom[/QUOTE]

That is exactly the cause of the problem. Immigrants that are productive and assimilate the culture of where they live are a blessing. They can be very helpful to a country. But what we are getting in Europe now is an invasion of mostly young man with very little education who have no desire to live the European lifestyle and come here wanting to impose their barbaric mentality on us while claiming all sorts of rights.
We are not stupid. We all know we are paying a fortune in taxes to support them and in exchange we are putting ourselves in danger. This needs to end and if the government doesn't have the guts to put the citizens first, people will start taking the matter into their own hands.
Nobody wants conflict and violence but we'll end up there anyway.

 

[gsa]

'The left' is far from homogeneous. Saying 'the left' has these views is like 'Muslims' support capital punishment for apostasy or something. Not uncommon, but in no way close to universal.

Well I am not prepared to abandon generalization in language altogether so that I may give credit to a political taxonomic system, particularly when I tried to make it clear that I was talking about a particular section of the left by explicitly referencing social privilege. If people want to make more out of it, so be it. I have mentioned critical race theory elsewhere and I think that my position is fairly well known at this point.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

no. you got me spot on. we have to keep in mind that the propensity to religious fundamentalism is not unique to Islam. Christianity is just as bad. Buddhism even has it's share of skeletons in the closet (such as Japanese Kamakaziis and the Samurai). The moment we stop talking about people's beliefs and start talking about the people themselves, we break a barrier on what we think it is possible to change.

In my opinion that's a ridiculous position to hold. By trying to frame it in context of race rather than religion you are legitimising the cries of 'racism' from the more idiotic liberals and sweeping Islam yet further & further away from criticism. It's not peoples' racial identity that's the problem when it comes to extremism, it's their religious nature. As you've admitted by bringing in the comparison with Christianity & Buddhism. Why aren't you talking about white people & Asian people instead of Christianity & Buddhism? Your logic.

The Kamikaze (as well as Japan's racial supremacism in WW2) came about from a corruption - that is to say, a twisting of the meaning - of the Japanese creation story to mean that since the kami created Japan first, and came down to Earth from Heaven there, that Japan & the Japanese were inherently of greater worth. The Kojiki does not say this. It is not to do with Buddhism (Buddhism was actually outlawed as a foreign religion because it was imported) but actually to do with Shinto (specifically State Shinto which has since been abolished).

By framing it as a conflict between Islam and the West, we turn it into a ridiciously abstract "clash of civilisations" that is by definition insoluable. But start thinking about the Middle East as a region, as a centre for oil supplies on which the west relies on, and how the politics of oil and development becomes rationalised in religious belief, we might get somewhere. its defeatism to think this is about Islam.

No, that's realism. You're insisting that we look past the reason men are killing gay people, ramming truck bombs at enemy bases, raping non-Muslims, screaming 'Allahu Akbar!' as they fight and insist it's okay because Muhammed waged war too. You're trying to tell us its because they're Arab, rather than because they're Muslim. You're the one legitimising the cries of 'racism' by irrevocably tying religion to race when there are plenty of non-Arab Muslims in the world.

The Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the Boston bombings were Chechen-Avars; they were not Arabs. But they were Muslim.

we can create secular, liberal, democractic countries in the Middle East, and that is ultimately what we want. it's imperialism plain and simple, and should we really have to apologise for it? we've done it around the world a hundred times before. but before we can tackle whether that is the right or even a workable solution we have to admit that the problem isn't "Muslims".

Why isn't the problem Muslims? We're always told "it takes two to tango/fight/****/whatever" so if we're part of the problem why are they not? Why are the people who scream 'God is great!' as they detonate their bomb vest in a crowd not part of the problem but we are? Why is it Muslims seemed to care so much less about the fact Saddam was a tyrant than the idea of an army of infidels defending Baghdad from extremist militias?

maybe then we won't keep propping up the very dictatorships whose abuses radicalise ordinary people in the region. If the US stops paying the regions "tough guys" to shoot protesters, may then they'll start taking "freedom and democracy" as ideals seriously.

Okay, this I can agree with. Egypt elected the Muslim Brotherhood who then got coup'd out of power because the U.S. doesn't like them. That's messed up - that shows that we're only interested in democracy when it gives us the results we want. That's fair enough.

But what if Muslims vote for parties that openly advocate doing away with democracy? What if they don't want it? It'll be partly because the West is hypocritical about it; but also because Islamic scholars preach against democracy because it is non-Muslim in origin.

if we want a secular middle east- we have to frame the debate so that it is actually a possibility.

You're doing the exact opposite; you want us to stop talking about Islam when secularism's main definition is religion in relation to governance.

Liberals don't hate religion. they secularise it and take the sting of fundamentalism out of it.

And how do you expect liberals to do that if you want to deflect the conversation away from religion and on to a red herring?

 

[Laika]

In my opinion that's a ridiculous position to hold. By trying to frame it in context of race rather than religion you are legitimising the cries of 'racism' from the more idiotic liberals and sweeping Islam yet further & further away from criticism. It's not peoples' racial identity that's the problem when it comes to extremism, it's their religious nature. As you've admitted by bringing in the comparison with Christianity & Buddhism. Why aren't you talking about white people & Asian people instead of Christianity & Buddhism? Your logic.

The Kamikaze (as well as Japan's racial supremacism in WW2) came about from a corruption - that is to say, a twisting of the meaning - of the Japanese creation story to mean that since the kami created Japan first, and came down to Earth from Heaven there, that Japan & the Japanese were inherently of greater worth. The Kojiki does not say this. It is not to do with Buddhism (Buddhism was actually outlawed as a foreign religion because it was imported) but actually to do with Shinto (specifically State Shinto which has since been abolished).




No, that's realism. You're insisting that we look past the reason men are killing gay people, ramming truck bombs at enemy bases, raping non-Muslims, screaming 'Allahu Akbar!' as they fight and insist it's okay because Muhammed waged war too. You're trying to tell us its because they're Arab, rather than because they're Muslim. You're the one legitimising the cries of 'racism' by irrevocably tying religion to race when there are plenty of non-Arab Muslims in the world.

The Tsarnaev brothers who carried out the Boston bombings were Chechen-Avars; they were not Arabs. But they were Muslim.




Why isn't the problem Muslims? We're always told "it takes two to tango/fight/****/whatever" so if we're part of the problem why are they not? Why are the people who scream 'God is great!' as they detonate their bomb vest in a crowd not part of the problem but we are? Why is it Muslims seemed to care so much less about the fact Saddam was a tyrant than the idea of an army of infidels defending Baghdad from extremist militias?




Okay, this I can agree with. Egypt elected the Muslim Brotherhood who then got coup'd out of power because the U.S. doesn't like them. That's messed up - that shows that we're only interested in democracy when it gives us the results we want. That's fair enough.

But what if Muslims vote for parties that openly advocate doing away with democracy? What if they don't want it? It'll be partly because the West is hypocritical about it; but also because Islamic scholars preach against democracy because it is non-Muslim in origin.




You're doing the exact opposite; you want us to stop talking about Islam when secularism main definition is religion in relation to governance.




And how do you expect liberals to do that if you want to deflect the conversation away from religion and on to a red herring?

put bluntly, if Islam is intrinsically evil that means we charaterise the war as one with 1.6 billion people. the only way we "win" is by forcing them to convert to another religion or belief system (which as the Soviets demonstrated, isn't going to work by force) or we have to wipe them out because:

i) if we can't change their beliefs
ii) and their beliefs are intrinsically evil
iii) and that their religion is 'always' that way

its not immediately obvious but treating it as "Islam" as the problem is a way of de-humanising Muslims. we treat the religion as if it were some seperate entity totally divorced from people's actions and behaviour. we treat all muslims as if they are brain-washed and dellusional, as if they are prisoners of their beliefs and are secretly working to bring down western civilisation because they have beliefs hostile to ours and they read it in the Qur'an. but they aren't.

we have to change the reasoning enough to make the genocidal nature of decision we are making clear. get people to think about it. the moment we do that- 95+ % of us won't accept it. the small group that do, will be revealed as dangerous and pushed back to the fringes.

then we stop treating "muslims" as the problem by virtue of their beliefs and start treating terrorists as the problem because of their actions. the non-violent majority, whatever their beliefs is subjected to socio-economic changes that slowly secularise them.

we have therefore stopped trying to deal with 1.6 billion people and have to deal with a number probably in thousands. it makes it much more managable and soluable without trying to wipe out a religion and a large portion of its adherents as "collateral damage".

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

put bluntly, if Islam is intrinsically evil that means...

Strawman. I haven't said nor suggested Islam is intrinsically evil. What I have said is:

• that there are aspects and dimensions of the faith that Muslims don't want to recognise.
• that there are aspects and dimensions of the faith that non-Muslims are afraid to point out for fear of being branded racist/xenophobic/Islamophobic/imperialist/privileged/bigoted.

Further, it frustrates me when people mention "but there are problems with Christianity/Buddhism/Hinduism/whatever ****ing religion too" as if

1. that excuses the problems with Islam, despite the two facts that it claims to be the complete religion sent directly from God; and
2. that implies that since there are problems with all religions we're not allowed to call out the problems on just one at a time - it's either all or nothing.

we charaterise the war

Nope! There is no war between the West and Islam. Pointing out flaws in Islamic theology that make it incompatible with civilisation is not 'fighting' or 'war'. Only people who are so insecure they can't stomach the slightest amount of criticism would truly equate criticism with violence.

its not immediately obvious but treating it as "Islam" as the problem is a way of de-humanising Muslims. we treat the religion as if it were some seperate entity totally divorced from people's actions and behaviour.

Pointing out the fact there are problems with parts of Islam is not dehumanising Muslims any more than pointing out flaws in, say, nationalist politics is dehumanising people who identify as nationalists. Your position is asinine. And I'm pointing out that Islam is the cause of Islamic terrorists' actions because the theology permits such atrocities as the ones they commit.

we treat all muslims as if they are brain-washed and dellusional

Speak for yourself.

as if they are prisoners of their beliefs

Some actually are because they want to leave Islam but are afraid of being deemed apostates and murdered.

and are secretly working to bring down western civilisation because they have beliefs hostile to ours and they read it in the Qur'an. but they aren't.

Some are. But that's no good reason to tar them all with the same brush.

 

[Laika]

Strawman. I haven't said nor suggested Islam is intrinsically evil. What I have said is:

• that there are aspects and dimensions of the faith that Muslims don't want to recognise.
• that there are aspects and dimensions of the faith that non-Muslims are afraid to point out for fear of being branded racist/xenophobic/Islamophobic/imperialist/privileged/bigoted.

Further, it frustrates me when people mention "but there are problems with Christianity/Buddhism/Hinduism/whatever ****ing religion too" as if

1. that excuses the problems with Islam, despite the two facts that it claims to be the complete religion sent directly from God; and
2. that implies that since there are problems with all religions we're not allowed to call out the problems on just one at a time - it's either all or nothing.

Nope! There is no war between the West and Islam. Pointing out flaws in Islamic theology that make it incompatible with civilisation is not 'fighting' or 'war'. Only people who are so insecure they can't stomach the slightest amount of criticism would truly




Pointing out the fact there are problems with parts of Islam is not dehumanising Muslims any more than pointing out flaws in, say, nationalist politics is dehumanising people who identify as nationalists. Your position is asinine. And I'm pointing out that Islam is the cause of Islamic terrorists' actions because the theology permits such atrocities as the ones they commit.




Speak for yourself.




Some actually are because they want to leave Islam but are afraid of being deemed apostates and murdered.




Some are. But that's no good reason to tar them all with the same brush.

I'm just going to leave this as this isn't going to go anywhere.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I'm just going to leave this as this isn't going to go anywhere.

Fair enough. I suspect I'm missing the point in any case.

 

[gsa]

I'm just going to leave this as this isn't going to go anywhere.

I think you should engage. There is a productive discussion to be had, but it requires accepting some legitimacy on the part of the liberal critique.

 

[Laika]

I think you should engage. There is a productive discussion to be had, but it requires accepting some legitimacy on the part of the liberal critique.

honestly, I just want to see a light at the end of the tunnel, some sort of "end-game" rather than just discuss which passages of the qu'ran offend our post-christian sensabilities now that we have forgotten much of the darkness our own history. that's what I really feel.

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'm confused here. Is it confirmed that migrant were involved, or the main culprits, in this?

 

[Flankerl]

Yes it is confirmed. Nothing to be confused about.

 

[Smart_Guy]

This is bad.

Were they involved as part of it or was the whole thing their planning and doing?

 

[Jumi]

This is bad.

Were they involved as part of it or was the whole thing their planning and doing?

Yes. It's known at least part of them were asylum seeker refugees. In my country there was a group of asylum seekers planning something like this according to some news reports, with possibility that they would target Shia asylum seekers as well as locals. Not much information is coming out, especially after Cologne events.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Yes. It's known at least part of them were asylum seeker refugees. In my country there was a group of asylum seekers planning something like this according to some news reports, with possibility that they would target Shia asylum seekers as well as locals. Not much information is coming out, especially after Cologne events.

How could they do this to the people who took them in? I guess war, fear and hunger have their effects of people after all

 

[Revoltingest]

How could they do this to the people who took them in? I guess war, fear and hunger have their effects of people after all

Also, these dirtbags are a small minority, & don't represent all refugees.

Am I unfair to bags of dirt?
If so, I apologize to them.