Death threats sees speaker pull out of Australia tour

[Victor Ian]

Actually no.

And tbh I don't really care if you take my opinions seriously or not, because I'm not actually sure about most of them myself. Quite often I'll go back and re-read my posts after a day or two, and think "well that was crap".

While you appear to dismiss religionsism as not something, it is something very real and exactly like racism in its effect. As for the part you bolded.... you are smart enough to have understood my crude point. You are willing to test your ideas by putting them out there for others to interrogate. You should tour instead of Ms whatshername.

 

[Victor Ian]

How about you coin it instead of misapporpriating a word with a different meaning?

A set of ideas absolutely should not be protected in the way of intrinsic cores to people's being (Race, sexuality etc). And in case you didn't notice there was a week long debate a few months ago on whether violence on people with certain ideas is ok, now were debating whether you should be able to speak out against them?

Are you serious? People's identity is much more about what they think than what colour their skin is or who their father was. I Think therefore I am! Descartes nailed it. Are you suggesting that because my thoughts can be changed they are not worth protecting. Well.... surely you have heard of skin bleach that is sold all over the non white world.

 

[Spark]

How about you coin it instead of misapporpriating a word with a different meaning?

A set of ideas absolutely should not be protected in the way of intrinsic cores to people's being (Race, sexuality etc). And in case you didn't notice there was a week long debate a few months ago on whether violence on people with certain ideas is ok, now were debating whether you should be able to speak out against them?

The restriction of the word "racism" of being only about skin colour is very peculiar to the West tbh—not even the West, but America in particular. Most places in the world make no real mental distinction between the words race and ethnic (or ethno-linguistic) group, and religion plays heavily into the latter.

Some of the stuff my relatives say about Chinese is textbook racist, for example, but you'd be hard-pressed to explain it in terms of skin colour or physical features (nor, incidentally, could you make a convincing argument based on power structures)

 

[Shri]

The restriction of the word "racism" of being only about skin colour is very peculiar to the West tbh—not even the West, but America in particular. Most places in the world make no real mental distinction between the words race and ethnic (or ethno-linguistic) group, and religion plays heavily into the latter.

Some of the stuff my relatives say about Chinese is textbook racist, for example, but you'd be hard-pressed to explain it in terms of skin colour or physical features (nor, incidentally, could you make a convincing argument based on power structures)

Yeah, you leave yourself open to discrimination in India if you don't speak the regional language or speak it with an accent.

 

[Ausage]

Are you serious? People's identity is much more about what they think than what colour their skin is or who their father was. I Think therefore I am! Descartes nailed it. Are you suggesting that because my thoughts can be changed they are not worth protecting. Well.... surely you have heard of skin bleach that is sold all over the non white world.

Your thoughts are your own, once you express them verbally or through other actions they become completely fair game for criticism. This is the bedrock of human to human interaction so I find your comment pretty strange. It's immensely frustrating (and a little bit scary) that there's a prevailing view that this should not apply to a certain religion in the west too.

I'd like to point out that this in no way justifies discrimination against any individual. "I want to see Islam destroyed ideologically and militarily" (something she's said/implied) is very different to "You're a **** because you're a Muslim" (something afaia she's never implied). Both sides of the debate struggle to separate the two but if we want to get to the other side of this tightrope is a distinction we have to be able to make.

The restriction of the word "racism" of being only about skin colour is very peculiar to the West tbh—not even the West, but America in particular. Most places in the world make no real mental distinction between the words race and ethnic (or ethno-linguistic) group, and religion plays heavily into the latter.

Some of the stuff my relatives say about Chinese is textbook racist, for example, but you'd be hard-pressed to explain it in terms of skin colour or physical features (nor, incidentally, could you make a convincing argument based on power structures)

I think it's appropriate for the word racism to be used for discrimination along racial grounds. We have other words for discrimination against other things and bigotry is a perfectly acceptable term to describe something that doesn't fall neatly into any category. The words used I guess matter less than the idea that actions and ideas are fair game for discrimination, while people are not. For example I'm ok with someone being anti Islam (or Christianity, Scientology, Buddhism, Nazism, w/e) but I'm not ok with someone being anti Muslim.

Criticism of ideas is the only way we maintain a society worth living in but I appreciate it's a difficult path to walk. Stray too far one side you become bigoted against individuals, stray too far the other you provide an excuse or even find room to allow the practice of barbaric practices. Again, we need to be vigilant to criticize reprehensible actions without painting people broad brushes and nowhere is that more true than with Islam.

 

[watson]

While you appear to dismiss religionsism as not something, it is something very real and exactly like racism in its effect. As for the part you bolded.... you are smart enough to have understood my crude point. You are willing to test your ideas by putting them out there for others to interrogate. You should tour instead of Ms whatshername.

And that is the exact problem with religion.

The hurt feels as bad as racism, but unlike the reality of race the hurt is based on nothing more than fantasy. Untangle the fantasy from the individual's Worldview and the supposed 'insult' no longer exists. Or if it does exist it has been relegated to a mere trifle.

I think that you've pretty much nailed the issue on the head Victor Ian.

 

[Munificent_Fool]

However, the end game for society is not 'division and polarisation' at all, but concensus and peaceful co-existence.

Peaceful co-existence, yes. Consensus, hell no. I don't want everyone to agree about everything. Not only is it boring, but it's corrosive to discourse, in many contexts. It's easy enough to say you want consensus on the theory of evolution, to take a simple case. There is a clear right side and wrong side, generally speaking. Not so easy when you're talking about the Atlantic slave trade. Or the Allied response to Hitler invading Poland. Division, comparing and contrasting ideas and arguments even vulgar or ahistorical....that's one of the vital ways of making progress.

Frankly, I think we're talking at cross-purposes. Ftr I'm not talking about racism, bigotry, segregation, nationalism, or any of that crap. I'm talking about politics. It doesn't exist without division. Hirsi Ali may be bigoted, racist or whatever but it is fatuous, imo, to say we shouldn't pay attention to her because she is divisive.

 

[watson]

The latest from the SMH front-page;

Anti-Islam activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali protesters met with radical sheikh

A Muslim leader whose group planned to rally 5000 protesters outside a talk by anti-Islam activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the basis that she "condones violence and radicalises people" has previously met with a radical sheikh who promoted suicide bombing.....

Anti-Islam activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali protesters met with radical sheikh

Unfortunately the article doesn't say much except that the ironically named 'Council for the Prevention of Islamophobia' and the 'Australian Islamic Peace Conferences' are run by pro-violence Islamist nut-jobs.

Something we could have guessed on our own after about 2 seconds anyway.

 

[watson]

Peaceful co-existence, yes. Consensus, hell no. I don't want everyone to agree about everything. Not only is it boring, but it's corrosive to discourse, in many contexts. It's easy enough to say you want consensus on the theory of evolution, to take a simple case. There is a clear right side and wrong side, generally speaking. Not so easy when you're talking about the Atlantic slave trade. Or the Allied response to Hitler invading Poland. Division, comparing and contrasting ideas and arguments even vulgar or ahistorical....that's one of the vital ways of making progress.

Frankly, I think we're talking at cross-purposes. Ftr I'm not talking about racism, bigotry, segregation, nationalism, or any of that crap. I'm talking about politics. It doesn't exist without division. Hirsi Ali may be bigoted, racist or whatever but it is fatuous, imo, to say we shouldn't pay attention to her because she is divisive.

Agree with the bolded 100%.

However, in Europe and the US there has been little concensus between the government (pick any Neocon or Neolib government) and the electorate. The end result of this lack of consensus has seen the collapse of Democratic Socialism, the rise of right-wing Populism, and the incursion of Islamism into Western societies.

In political terms I would say that is a bad outcome.

 

[brockley]

Good discussion.
On Bolt by satelite she said security was the major reason.
The fact we have lax security,like at Q and A,is a let down.
I mean if every person who critcizes Islam doesn't come.
We will get 1 side of the story all the time,especially on Q and A because its so left.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Good discussion.
On Bolt by satelite she said security was the major reason.
The fact we have lax security,like at Q and A,is a let down.
I mean if every person who critcizes Islam doesn't come.
We will get 1 side of the story all the time,especially on Q and A because its so left.

Q & A always has representatives on from the right - they let Piss Ackermann on for christ's sake. Others feature in disguise as a member of some sort of policy "think tank". The ironically named Centre for Independent studies being one of them. Anus Bollocks - a head of some sort of business organisation, and former Liberal party staffer. was another. I'd like to say I'm outraged that "it's so left" has become a reply to any program that dares enter into intelligent debate, rather than simply put on the lip gloss and fall to its knees when a member of the government comes on, but I'm not at all. Right-wing conservatives have redefined "it's so left" as meaning there's an ounce of intelligence present in the conversation, so I'm alright with that.

Maybe if the government hadn't defunded the ABC, they'd have better security.

 

[Burgey]

How about you coin it instead of misapporpriating a word with a different meaning?

A set of ideas absolutely should not be protected in the way of intrinsic cores to people's being (Race, sexuality etc). And in case you didn't notice there was a week long debate a few months ago on whether violence on people with certain ideas is ok, now were debating whether you should be able to speak out against them?

I watched Schindler's List last night. It was on late. I just wish someone had sat down and had a natter with Amon Goeth.

 

[Ausage]

I watched Schindler's List last night. It was on late. I just wish someone had sat down and had a natter with Amon Goeth.

Would have gone down as well as a chat with Al Baghdadi I'd wager.

 

[Burgey]

You've just got to talk it through with those people. It's just another POV. They're entitled to it.

 

[watson]

You've just got to talk it through with those people. It's just another POV. They're entitled to it.

I don't think that we can seriously compare Hirsi Ali, Harris or any anti-Islamist devotees with your actual real Islamist or equally vile Amon Goeth. I'm assuming he's the guy taking pot shots at Jews in the concentration camp half-way thru the movie.

 

[Dan]

And that is the exact problem with religion.

The hurt feels as bad as racism, but unlike the reality of race the hurt is based on nothing more than fantasy. Untangle the fantasy from the individual's Worldview and the supposed 'insult' no longer exists. Or if it does exist it has been relegated to a mere trifle.

I think that you've pretty much nailed the issue on the head Victor Ian.

****ing hell

 

[Dan]

Oh and apparently in other news Potato Pete has cancelled the visa of a pro-Palestinian speaker or something. I haven't read that deeply into it, but from the small chunks I saw it looked like a "ur so divisive, nty" thing. Straight after someone from the quote-unquote other side of the aisle (not that they've come to discuss exactly the same issues) getting shouted down for 'being divisive' was met with yells of "MUH FREE SPEECH*"

So, uhh, yeah...can we not give ministers blanket override of these kinds of processes? And can people at least pretend to be consistent on issues of speech from time to time?


*Terms and Conditions Apply (i.e. we reserve the right to retract all yells of MUH FREE SPEECH if you're not saying what we like).

 

[Ausage]

So, uhh, yeah...can we not give ministers blanket override of these kinds of processes?

Yeah I'd support that.

 

[brockley]

Son of Coco of the Right?
You are meant to have ppl on the Right and Left of a discussion point to make it interesting.

The fact ABC has this quota policy shows why Muslims are on Q and A and the Drum a lot.

And another thing Kerry Chickarovski a slave of the Right?Think not she is centrist as you can get.
Yes Piers ackerman and Paul Kelly of the right.

Do you want all lefties on the panel,where is the interest in that.

I'm still sad she didn't come,of course she is an apostate in her religion,and of course some Muslims want her dead.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Son of Coco of the Right?
You are meant to have ppl on the Right and Left of a discussion point to make it interesting.

The fact ABC has this quota policy shows why Muslims are on Q and A and the Drum a lot.

And another thing Kerry Chickarovski a slave of the Right?Think not she is centrist as you can get.
Yes Piers ackerman and Paul Kelly of the right.

Do you want all lefties on the panel,where is the interest in that.

I'm still sad she didn't come,of course she is an apostate in her religion,and of course some Muslims want her dead.

They do have people from both sides. That was my point.

I'd hate to have all lefties on the panel. If there were, we'd be deprived of the right to laugh at people like Daisy Cousens and Helen Andrews. Although in saying that, I only laugh meekly at Andrews as the serial killer hairdo and glasses make me a little uneasy.

Who brought up Chickarovski?

And lastly, **** me dead this is painful and I'm not surprised you vote for the right side of politics.

The narrative to come out of the Trump election was the left had lost because they won't sit down and have a conversation with the right. I knew at the time it was a ****ing joke...it would just result in an endless circle of mind-numbing conversations like this one.

The most intelligent people I know vote left (and the least intelligent, well, you know where this is going,). I'll stick with the smart folk.

That's not to say there are no intelligent voters on the right, but I just personally don't believe it's possible to do so unless you either believe we're being invaded by Muslims, are an aspirational voter, or have more to gain personally than the nation does as a whole.