Good article: http://www.huffingtonpost.in/zubin-madon/silencing-dissent-youtube_b_9019408.html
Please discuss!
Please discuss!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Does Everyone Want to Silence Ex-Muslims?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Interesting article, thanks for the link.
At least partly due to the nature of my work, I commonly think in terms of systems and processes.
So when considering the treatment of ex-Muslims specifically by social media sites, I tend to focus on 2 questions;
1) Why are ex-Muslims being treated differently by the software/media provider itself?
From a systematic point of view, I'm not convinced they are. To be fair, I don't know that they aren't, either, but consider;
ex-Muslims are apostates in the view of fundamentalists. This is a different situation from ex-Scientoligists (as an example). Whereas Scientology will shun the former member, not just on social media, but in RL, the Muslim world is much more likely to view apostasy in punitive terms. So, on the one hand, you have a small community shunning an ex-member, and on the other a very large community who will not ignore the ex-member. If their reporting system is based on a pure 'number of complaints' model, well...you can see the issue.
2) Why not change the system to make it fairer?
Well...the question in terms of change is not really 'Why not change to make it fairer?'. Perhaps it should be. But the question really is 'Why would they change?'
What is the cost and benefit from a business point of view. Listed companies are fun, huh?
freethinker44
Well-Known Member
I remember creationists used to do this to atheists all the time. I think a few even got caught using bots to dislike posts thousands of times. And then they started in with the DMCAs. I don't know if they just got bored or if youtube figured out how to stop it, but I haven't seen any of that in while. The ex-muslims should get in contact with some of those atheists and see how they handled it.
That opens a can of worms. The notion that companies are foremost or only responsible to their shareholders is deeply ingrained in us today, but -- and it's a huge but -- it's a relatively new idea that was largely invented (at Harvard, among other places) in the 1980s. Before then, it was more often the case that business executives saw themselves as balancing the interests of up to five constituencies: The shareholders, management, labor, consumers, and the community at large. It's largely a matter of fashion that we still don't see things that way. So perhaps a case could be made that social media companies do indeed have some obligation to promote fairness that to some extent transcends profits.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I thought it was odd that the article claims that posts on FB that are critical of religion are against the rules, but I've posted a few and a guy on my friends list posts many of them, and we haven't had any problems. However, it is a problem within Liberal circles to silence criticism of Islam as well as, criticism of harsh Islamic cultural practices. And such practices do make it harder for progressive and ex-Muslims to speak up, offer the insiders view, and it makes it harder to support those Muslims who are fighting for positive change in their cultures and religious practices.
Yeah, but you're talking moralistically. I'm talking purely in pragmatic terms.
My view is that pure responsiveness to share price is reprehensible in many ways. But that is an undeniable fact in that way majority of publically listed businesses are operated.
The company I work for has just been taken over by an equity company that has made a living from the 1 step back, 2 steps forward approach...simplistically...
1) Company needs to change strategic direction for long term growth reasons
2) Doing so requires short term investment of a substantial amount
3) Share price will be adversely affected, so minimal changes are made.
4) Equity company takes over company and removes from public listing
5) Equity company invests in short term investment
6) Equity company refloats newly modernised company
7) Equity company recoups investment capital + short term investment + profit margin
The removal of the company from the stock exchange is required because the majority of investors are completely divorced even from the nature of the business. They just get 'better interest rates' than they do by putting their money in a bank.
Interesting, SW. I do wonder whether it would have been a different story if FB existed 40 years ago, or something. In Pleasantville, so to speak.
To talk in moral terms is at times to talk in long-term pragmatic terms.
In the long term, Western Leftists might be cutting their own throats not to show more support for intelligent and informed criticisms by ex-Muslims.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I wouldn't say it's a Leftist issue, but more specifically an issue with "mainstream" liberals. I've seen many of those on the left show support for progressive Muslims while criticizing conservative Islamic culture and certain parts of the Quran. But when someone doesn't want to hear it, up to and including calling those offering the criticisms racist, it's usually a liberal.
Sadly, I have to agree. I find it hard to distinguish between defending Islam and Muslims, without also logically making some sort of defence of ISIL on the grounds of "Anti-Imperalism". its unintentional, but I know the problem is there. arguing against capitalism and even liberalism as a "universal" or intrinsically "human" value opens the door to supporting deeply reactionary causes based on insisting the "pecularity" of cultural differences, some of which may be nationalistic, authoritarian and/or theocratic. there is a conflict between defending Muslims whilst also trying to assert the rights of women, the LGBT community and "apostates".
Of course, if "religion is the opium of the people", it's possible the left shouldn't be defending Islam at all- and should engage in their own "imperialistic" imposition of "westernising" socialist values as the Soviets tried and failed in Afghanistan. ironically, if the Soviets had succeeded in terrorising Afghanistan into submission as a "socialist" state- it may have eliminated Al-queda and Bin Laden, even if the methods used were stomach churning. Given the Islamic revolution in Iran however, it's unlikely that it would have eliminated islamic fundamentalism entirely and merely pushed it back in one place only for it to emerge in another. it all depends on the underlying socio-economic causes as to why the "Islamic" world wasn't "secularised" or became more liberal and western of its own accord. It's weird but maybe the fact that the Ottomen Empire was not dismembered by European Colonial rulers like almost everywhere else plays a role in this. there are "imperialistic" options for the left but they clearly are somewhat disturbing however you frame it.
The only way round this is by supporting an Islamic Reformation and hearing "militant" voices from within the Muslim community itself that are opposed to interpretations of Islam that are of the same vein as ISIL. the radical assertion of either socialist and liberal ideologies by Muslims as a path to self-emancipation is by far preferable to the "imperalist" imposition of secular values (regardless as to whether we agree with the goal, as you cann't "force people to be free"). however, I don't think many people will support that position as "revolutionary" politics aren't either popular nor conducive to stability in a region in which the west is so dependent on oil. Would we accept the risks of a Secular Republic in Saudi Arabia? we have to nurture a counter-extremism and counter-narratives that show that Islam and the West are not mutually exclusive but can intergrate. That will conflict with more conservative models of Islam to say the least. Ex-Muslims would be an important and compartively well informed voice of reason in differientating theocratic and secular interpretations of Islam and perhaps smoothing the road to "free" societies.
Waht?! Everyone Wants to Silence Ex-Muslims?!
The opposite is true...
If you want a Noble prize in literature...Just write a book attacking Islam!
Indeed, I Never heared anyoen of those claiming to be ex-Muslims trying to logically refute Islam...
They tend to have problems living according to the Islamic laws...
So they have personal issues...such as being gays..or trying to be a playboy in an Islamic society and so on..
From what I have seen, Islam is simply not ready to accept anything resembling criticism of the doctrine as opposed to the people.
When it happens, it is entirely outside the average Muslims's ability to handle or even to understand, and there comes lightning-fast branding of people as anything from "not true Muslims" to "Enemies of Islam".
A mix of unwarranted extrapolations from their experience with Christianity and a sincered if perhaps naive desire to keep tensions somewhat low leads many well-meaning people into jumping the gun and deciding that the criticism must be exagerated because otherwise it would not lead to such passionate reactions.
Of course, that leads to such things as attempts to find a positive light to present everything from the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie to the persistence of Palestinians in rocket bombing Israel.
It is terrible to conclude that one and a half billion people are failing to curtain the excesses of their own religion. But avoiding the realization will not make it better.
When it happens, it is entirely outside the average Muslims's ability to handle or even to understand, and there comes lightning-fast branding of people as anything from "not true Muslims" to "Enemies of Islam".
A mix of unwarranted extrapolations from their experience with Christianity and a sincered if perhaps naive desire to keep tensions somewhat low leads many well-meaning people into jumping the gun and deciding that the criticism must be exagerated because otherwise it would not lead to such passionate reactions.
Of course, that leads to such things as attempts to find a positive light to present everything from the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie to the persistence of Palestinians in rocket bombing Israel.
It is terrible to conclude that one and a half billion people are failing to curtain the excesses of their own religion. But avoiding the realization will not make it better.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Mediocre blog with a terrible headline that does it no favours. I can’t deny going in with a negative impression from the start because of that (possibly unfairly if these blogs are headlined by sub-editors rather than the writers like most actual journalistic articles).
The main problem with the body of the blog is that it highlights some symptoms but makes not real effort to consider or investigate the causes. It implies (but doesn’t outright state) that there is some form of conscious campaign to silence anti-religious and specifically ex-Muslim voices on social media yet the only evidence it provides is a handful of selected examples of “good” things that have been blocked and “bad” things that haven’t. It also focuses on what people are (ex-Muslims) rather than what they say, which is obviously the only factor that should be considered in the first place.
The whole area of freedom of speech on social media is much more complex and difficult that this blog gives it credit (and, I suspect, that the author even understands) and covers a much wider array of people, voices and ideas that they very specific example they’ve chosen to focus on. I don’t think it’s a good thing to have such a tight focus on such a diverse issue and indeed that kind of attitude can be one small part of the greater problem.
The main problem with the body of the blog is that it highlights some symptoms but makes not real effort to consider or investigate the causes. It implies (but doesn’t outright state) that there is some form of conscious campaign to silence anti-religious and specifically ex-Muslim voices on social media yet the only evidence it provides is a handful of selected examples of “good” things that have been blocked and “bad” things that haven’t. It also focuses on what people are (ex-Muslims) rather than what they say, which is obviously the only factor that should be considered in the first place.
The whole area of freedom of speech on social media is much more complex and difficult that this blog gives it credit (and, I suspect, that the author even understands) and covers a much wider array of people, voices and ideas that they very specific example they’ve chosen to focus on. I don’t think it’s a good thing to have such a tight focus on such a diverse issue and indeed that kind of attitude can be one small part of the greater problem.
Indeed, it would seem to be difficult to be an ex-Muslim living under Islamic law in many countries.
One of the very difficulties is apostasy law, so your point here is kinda self-fulfilling.
Apostasy law is misunderstood...
Let me say this:
-Islam is more than just a religion like any other...you can't join the FBI for instance, and then suddenly tell them bye..I am going to join the KGB!
- The known apostasy law is not applied to those who were not born in Islam, nor is it applied to women.
Neither of those statements appear to contradict what I said.
An ex-Muslim (which is what the OP was talking about) would be an apostate. Right?
Altfish
Veteran Member
Does that make it better?
Why is Islam more of a religion than any other? It is still the belief in something without evidence - i.e. faith.
Apostasy laws are driven by fear. Fear that someone has started to think about what they've been indoctrinated with and has come to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense - so they want out. Not good for the religion but good for the individual.
AsianActivist
Member
To put it simply, Islam is afraid of being criticized because they are wrong.
Akivah
Well-Known Member
Ex-muslims aren't being specifically targeted. It is actually a Western problem. Since Muslims react violently to any criticism, the West is in fear of publishing anything that might cause the arab street to get upset. All media is censored to avoid giving any pretext to arab anger. It is a ridiculous position which only encourages Islamic violence.
Islamic censoring even occurs on this website. Just try to attach a picture of Muhammad with a bomb on his turban to a post on this site. It will be quickly removed and your posting privileges will be suspended.
Islamic censoring even occurs on this website. Just try to attach a picture of Muhammad with a bomb on his turban to a post on this site. It will be quickly removed and your posting privileges will be suspended.