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

[Smart_Guy]

How are the German voters to make wise choices if the Government is unnecessarily restricting their access to information?

That's a good point. But you know, Germany is one of the most advanced and organized countries in the world. Who knows how would things change there if we want them to listen to us and our suggestions

 

[buddhist]

... One has a feeling that this will get much much worse before it gets better, unless there is some solution to the immigration crisis and the problems it is generating within Europe.

It's not an immigration crisis, it's a trojan-horse invasion crisis, led by Benedict Arnolds.

 

[gsa]

It's not an immigration crisis, it's a trojan-horse invasion crisis, led by Benedict Arnolds.

What makes you say that?

 

[buddhist]

What makes you say that?

As far as I've seen in most photos, they are vastly young, able-bodied males. Either they are cowards, or they are invaders.

 

[icehorse]

The general concern I have (for which this case is just one example), is that some immigrants want to integrate into the host country's laws and culture, and some want to subvert the host country's laws and behaviors. We can and should allow some healthy cultural mingling, but we should be quite firm when it comes to the laws of the host country.

If you're an immigrant, you either defend and support your host country's laws, or you're out.

 

[buddhist]

The general concern I have (for which this case is just one example), is that some immigrants want to integrate into the host country's laws and culture, and some want to subvert the host country's laws and behaviors. We can and should allow some healthy cultural mingling, but we should be quite firm when it comes to the laws of the host country.

If you're an immigrant, you either defend and support your host country's laws, or you're out.

I agree.

I thought that liberal thought demanded that individuals be recognized as individuals, and not labeled or categorized into groups. Yet they appear to be racist by categorizing all the "migrants" as "peaceful", and letting them in en masse, instead of vetting them on an individual, case-by-case basis.

 

[Crypto2015]

These German politicians are trying hard to organize a new genocide. Either it will be the mass rape and murder of non-Muslims or it will be the massacre of all non-Germans by German far right groups. These are the only two possible outcomes given Germany's attitude towards the "refugee" phenomenon.

 

[icehorse]

Which explains the surge in support for the Swedish Democrats, for example, which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

The situation in Europe is disconcerting for a few reasons. First, in multiparty democracies it does not necessarily take a voting majority to put these groups into power. Second, if they are shut out of power with substantial support (i.e., the National Front) and without the concerns of their constituents being addressed in some way, you are effectively ignoring the problem and creating substantial resentment, particularly when there is a fairly clear preference for not addressing the ethnic and religious fault lines being created as a result of the immigration crisis.

I also think that some people in the left (critical race theory types) have some responsibility for this; for years they have been conflating non-racist but pointed critiques of Islam with racism in order to shield criticism of Islam, particularly in Europe. Well now the real racists are coming out of the woodwork and building political movements, and they are using the pretext of false accusations of political correctness to their advantage as a recruiting mechanism.

Well put, and Confucius would agree:

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name. - Confucius

 

[icehorse]

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".

I don't think this is a "terrorism" problem. Sure, there is a small amount of terrorism, and it gets a lot of attention.

We all make a serious mistake the moment we think of (or refer to), Islam as a "religion". That mistake permeates and distorts every discussion. It strikes me that Islam ought to be referred to as a "totalitarian ideology". That is Islam's true nature. The moment we admit Islam's true nature, the discussion will change. It is one thing to allow freedom of religion. It is quite another to ignore immigrants who bring with them an ideology that is fundamentally in conflict with the countries that host them.

 

[LuisDantas]

Censorship is self-defeating.

The German government should comment the hell out of the more extreme reactions, but it is ultimately not in its power to actually solve those tensions.

It takes renewing the social contract and accepting the consequences both good and bad. There is no other way.

 

[Laika]

I don't think this is a "terrorism" problem. Sure, there is a small amount of terrorism, and it gets a lot of attention.

We all make a serious mistake the moment we think of (or refer to), Islam as a "religion". That mistake permeates and distorts every discussion. It strikes me that Islam ought to be referred to as a "totalitarian ideology". That is Islam's true nature. The moment we admit Islam's true nature, the discussion will change. It is one thing to allow freedom of religion. It is quite another to ignore immigrants who bring with them an ideology that is fundamentally in conflict with the countries that host them.

you've said almost exactly what I would argue against. as that is a "them and us" position that makes any form of conflict both inevitable and inescapably genoicidal. you've set up a position where only one group can be allowed to continue. that is a mistake.

 

[LuisDantas]

I must agree. It is the "us vs them" stances that we should aim to dissolve. Accepting the price that must be paid.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Laika and Luis,

Laika, I disagree that speaking Islam's true name leads to genocide. The seems like an enormous false dilemma.
Luis, I'm disagreeing with ideas, I'm not separating people.

Are you guys proposing that we abandon secularism? If not, then how do we defend secularism if we're not honest when it's under attack?

 

[Laika]

Hey Laika and Luis,

Laika, I disagree that speaking Islam's true name leads to genocide. The seems like an enormous false dilemma.
Luis, I'm disagreeing with ideas, not people.

Are you guys proposing that we abandon secularism? If not, then how do we defend secularism if we're not honest when it's under attack?

If you say that Islam is a totalitarian ideology, are you not saying that Muslims are automatically totalitarian?

I'm not saying we should abandon or surrender secularism, but that we have to find methods of dealing with religious fundamentalism that are compatable with secularism and the individual's freedom of religion. treating "Islam" as a homogenous, violent group that needs to be coerced out of their beliefs is not compatable with secularism. that's why I would call it genocidal (taken to it's absurd logical conclusion that is).

 

[icehorse]

Laika,

It seems to me that you're making a couple of fallacy arguments:

It is certainly the case that many Muslims are not in pursuit of totalitarianism. But that doesn't mean that the nature of Islamic ideas is not totalitarian.

Next, I think you're reverting back to a discussion of violence. I grant you that a small percentage of Muslims use violence to express their interpretation of Islam. It's a problem we need to address. But the bigger problem is with the 500 million (more or less), Muslims who want Sharia to be the law of the land.

What we see in the West is a constant denial that the desire for Sharia is baked in to Islam.

 

[buddhist]

treating "Islam" as a homogenous, violent group that needs to be coerced out of their beliefs is not compatable with secularism.

Treating "Islam" (or any other group) as a homogenous, peaceful group is also incompatible with secularism.

 

[buddhist]

Just as certain far right leaning groups may wish to brand various groups as homogenously violent (xenophobic), certain far left leaning groups may also wish to brand various groups as homogenously peaceful (xenophilic) - or vice versa.

Both belief systems are inherently "racist" and repugnant.