Another grooming gang
Discussion
I have a bit of time on my hands whilst an IT problem gets sorted so I shall reply to this
Most uk citizens will know who Boko Haram/AlQuada/ISIS are but how many will know of the LRA or the borderline genocides in South Sudan? A muslim commits an atrocity and our tabloids love it because they know it sells papers
In a sense, I agree with the sentiment but you only hold muslims to this high expectation.
White/black people of the uk riot and loot when a black drug dealer gets shot by police and yet no marches or riots happen when these 5 paedophiles commit this crime. You don't draw those comparisions as it wouldn't even occur to you that they are similar yet for muslim people there is this connection in your head and you don't even realise it.
andymadmak said:
Or is it the case that the high number of news stories in the media as a whole that involve Islam in some way. - wars, terrorism, extremism, acts of barbarity, etc - gets reflected in the number of stories that appear in NP&E? I suspect that that might be the case rather than any rampant desire to seek out and highlight anti Islam stories on the part of the PH massive. But if you have evidence to the contrary please do bring it forward.
I say you have it the wrong way around. THe tabloids pander to the masses and not the other way around. Just look at some of the atrocities carried out by non-muslims around the world and see how many front pages of the sun/mail/express they get.Most uk citizens will know who Boko Haram/AlQuada/ISIS are but how many will know of the LRA or the borderline genocides in South Sudan? A muslim commits an atrocity and our tabloids love it because they know it sells papers
amm said:
When a particular group or a number of groups seemingly belonging to the same over all identifier keeps appearing in the media it is perhaps not surprising that people hold a range of views towards those groups. Now here is where I think you may very well have a point.
I agree. But I maintain that muslim crimes are hugely disproportionately represented in our papers.amm said:
Many PHers simply do not understand what is going on inside the Muslim community. And I say that not in a challenging way, but ias a simple statement of fact. Many simply don't "get" why so many things dont add up. To take an extreme example we see thousands of muslims taking to the street in protest, and people being killed over the drawing of a few satirical cartoons, but we hear nary a peep when hundreds are found to be abusing, raping and exploiting kids. Now, I know, I know, that the two things are not the same and in many respects it is unfair to draw comparisons but if you are generous of thought I am sure that you could find any number of similar, perhaps less extreme examples of what at first glance appears to be the absolute double standards that exist.
You know, you know the two things are not the same and 'in many respects it's unfair to draw comparison' and yet you do.In a sense, I agree with the sentiment but you only hold muslims to this high expectation.
White/black people of the uk riot and loot when a black drug dealer gets shot by police and yet no marches or riots happen when these 5 paedophiles commit this crime. You don't draw those comparisions as it wouldn't even occur to you that they are similar yet for muslim people there is this connection in your head and you don't even realise it.
AMM said:
So, do I think that there ar anti islamic feelings in some posters on PH? Yes. Do I think it is " rampant" ? No. Honestly I do not. But I can be moved by evidence so bring the evidence forward. However as I said to the other poster who went all postal on me about this, evidence of what you assert is unlikely to be there.
So we actually agree that there is anti Islamic feeling on PH. Or racism as I call it, although you object to that word but I don't really know why when you acknowledge it exists. All we disagree on is the amount of it. I don't even know how do quantify "rampant" so you might even be right. It may not be rampant but we can both see it is clearly evident. THat's enough for me. I don't feel a need to quibble about exactly how much of it is here. TO me that's hardly the salient part of it.Thanks for the calm and considered response BSR, (genuinely)
OK, so let me start by saying that I agree with you about the media and how it portrays Islam. In one sense, as I was trying to say in my earlier post, all this PH forum does is reflect what is in the media (no surprise there) so if there are lots of stories in the media about Islam, then there will be lots on here too.
I would also agree with you that there are lots of other bad people/groups in the world who do plenty of nasty stuff that the media chooses to ignore - for whatever reasons. But that is an issue to take up with the editors of the national press. In my mind its one of those chicken and egg arguments. - why do the editors feel that the public want to see the Muslim stories rather than others..... is it because the public are anti islamic and thus the editors pander to that, or is it because there have already been so many stories and the editors follow the theme and the public follow the editors? I don't know the answer for sure, but my sense is that editors tend to just be lazy gits looking for similar stuff to tap into a level of interest that is already aroused. A good example of this is what happens after a plane crash... typically any incident in the following few weeks that involves a plane, no matter how trivial or routine gets reported by the media. If perchance the second or third incident IS serious then the flames of journalistic focus get ramped up still further.
I think this is what has happened to the reporting of Muslims and the incidents involving Muslims worldwide - there is a steady stream of it, and it's never normally trivial. Muslims are on the publics radar and on the medias radar and no matter how unfair that may seem to you (and indeed it may well be, given the atrocities committed by others) it is a fact that can only be dealt with by getting yourselves off the front pages for a few months.
As to the question of over reporting, then I think I deal with this in part above. BUT, and this is where our entente cordial may come under strain, if Muslims simply did not do this stuff then there would be nothing to report!!! In fact are you not simply blaming the messenger with your views?
Now, as for only holding Muslims to a high level of expectation I cannot agree. Honestly I cannot. So why are we so far apart on this? I think the disconnect is that non Muslims DO see Muslims on the streets protesting loudly about what, to many of us seems the most trivial of things, yet we do not see them protesting about what we might describe as somewhat more serious issues.
It's not as if Muslims NEVER protest. If they never protested about anything it would be reasonable to say, "well they are a quiet bunch at the best of times so it would be unreasonable to expect them to protest now." Instead, it's quite the opposite. The message conveyed, no matter how inadvertently is that Muslims only protest about things in their community that they care about. So some cartoons? protest. Wholesale abuse of white kids? silence. Is that unfair? I don't know. You tell me!
Now when the riots took place there were plenty of people on here strongly criticising certain groups for their actions and again this thread was started so as to criticise the 5 white paedophiles. So the idea that PH only criticises Muslims is simply wrong headed on your part. The Muslim question only got raised on this thread when certain people started complaining that the thread was not being critical enough, fast enough and the suggestion (by some brown folk) was because the perps were white instead of brown!
So even here on a thread about white paedophiles , the real victims are forgotten as some people insist on venting their outrage about what they perceive as racism. I'm struggling to even type this because my head is just blown away that people like TKF et al simply ignore the victims (which in this case were babies) in favour of their own agenda!
Lastly, yes we do agree that there is some anti Islamic feeling here. But I do not call that racism, since I do not consider Muslims to be a race per se. I may be technically wrong about that, but that's my outlook on life. Now, I would not condone discrimination against a Muslim any more than I would condone it against a black man, so in one respect the effects are the same. You call it racism and many will subscribe to that view , and that's fair enough for you. But you have completely ignored the reasons WHY people have negative feelings towards Islam. I suggest that people do not start their lives harbouring anti islamic feelings. I further suggest that those feelings come about through a combination of the frequency and seriousness of the stories that people see about Muslims. You might blame the editors for this, or you could blame Muslims for providing the stories in the first place. Raging that others do bad stuff too is not a justification for turning a blind eye to what is going on in your own communities/faith groups etc.
My old mum used to say that two wrongs do not make a right. Perhaps if Muslims spent less time murdering people because of some cartoons and a more time expressing a little solidarity with the victims of crimes then people might have a less jaundiced view of them?
OK, so let me start by saying that I agree with you about the media and how it portrays Islam. In one sense, as I was trying to say in my earlier post, all this PH forum does is reflect what is in the media (no surprise there) so if there are lots of stories in the media about Islam, then there will be lots on here too.
I would also agree with you that there are lots of other bad people/groups in the world who do plenty of nasty stuff that the media chooses to ignore - for whatever reasons. But that is an issue to take up with the editors of the national press. In my mind its one of those chicken and egg arguments. - why do the editors feel that the public want to see the Muslim stories rather than others..... is it because the public are anti islamic and thus the editors pander to that, or is it because there have already been so many stories and the editors follow the theme and the public follow the editors? I don't know the answer for sure, but my sense is that editors tend to just be lazy gits looking for similar stuff to tap into a level of interest that is already aroused. A good example of this is what happens after a plane crash... typically any incident in the following few weeks that involves a plane, no matter how trivial or routine gets reported by the media. If perchance the second or third incident IS serious then the flames of journalistic focus get ramped up still further.
I think this is what has happened to the reporting of Muslims and the incidents involving Muslims worldwide - there is a steady stream of it, and it's never normally trivial. Muslims are on the publics radar and on the medias radar and no matter how unfair that may seem to you (and indeed it may well be, given the atrocities committed by others) it is a fact that can only be dealt with by getting yourselves off the front pages for a few months.
As to the question of over reporting, then I think I deal with this in part above. BUT, and this is where our entente cordial may come under strain, if Muslims simply did not do this stuff then there would be nothing to report!!! In fact are you not simply blaming the messenger with your views?
Now, as for only holding Muslims to a high level of expectation I cannot agree. Honestly I cannot. So why are we so far apart on this? I think the disconnect is that non Muslims DO see Muslims on the streets protesting loudly about what, to many of us seems the most trivial of things, yet we do not see them protesting about what we might describe as somewhat more serious issues.
It's not as if Muslims NEVER protest. If they never protested about anything it would be reasonable to say, "well they are a quiet bunch at the best of times so it would be unreasonable to expect them to protest now." Instead, it's quite the opposite. The message conveyed, no matter how inadvertently is that Muslims only protest about things in their community that they care about. So some cartoons? protest. Wholesale abuse of white kids? silence. Is that unfair? I don't know. You tell me!
Now when the riots took place there were plenty of people on here strongly criticising certain groups for their actions and again this thread was started so as to criticise the 5 white paedophiles. So the idea that PH only criticises Muslims is simply wrong headed on your part. The Muslim question only got raised on this thread when certain people started complaining that the thread was not being critical enough, fast enough and the suggestion (by some brown folk) was because the perps were white instead of brown!
So even here on a thread about white paedophiles , the real victims are forgotten as some people insist on venting their outrage about what they perceive as racism. I'm struggling to even type this because my head is just blown away that people like TKF et al simply ignore the victims (which in this case were babies) in favour of their own agenda!
Lastly, yes we do agree that there is some anti Islamic feeling here. But I do not call that racism, since I do not consider Muslims to be a race per se. I may be technically wrong about that, but that's my outlook on life. Now, I would not condone discrimination against a Muslim any more than I would condone it against a black man, so in one respect the effects are the same. You call it racism and many will subscribe to that view , and that's fair enough for you. But you have completely ignored the reasons WHY people have negative feelings towards Islam. I suggest that people do not start their lives harbouring anti islamic feelings. I further suggest that those feelings come about through a combination of the frequency and seriousness of the stories that people see about Muslims. You might blame the editors for this, or you could blame Muslims for providing the stories in the first place. Raging that others do bad stuff too is not a justification for turning a blind eye to what is going on in your own communities/faith groups etc.
My old mum used to say that two wrongs do not make a right. Perhaps if Muslims spent less time murdering people because of some cartoons and a more time expressing a little solidarity with the victims of crimes then people might have a less jaundiced view of them?
andymadmak said:
Thanks for the calm and considered response BSR, (genuinely)
OK, so let me start by saying that I agree with you about the media and how it portrays Islam. In one sense, as I was trying to say in my earlier post, all this PH forum does is reflect what is in the media (no surprise there) so if there are lots of stories in the media about Islam, then there will be lots on here too.
I would also agree with you that there are lots of other bad people/groups in the world who do plenty of nasty stuff that the media chooses to ignore - for whatever reasons. But that is an issue to take up with the editors of the national press. In my mind its one of those chicken and egg arguments. - why do the editors feel that the public want to see the Muslim stories rather than others..... is it because the public are anti islamic and thus the editors pander to that, or is it because there have already been so many stories and the editors follow the theme and the public follow the editors? I don't know the answer for sure, but my sense is that editors tend to just be lazy gits looking for similar stuff to tap into a level of interest that is already aroused. A good example of this is what happens after a plane crash... typically any incident in the following few weeks that involves a plane, no matter how trivial or routine gets reported by the media. If perchance the second or third incident IS serious then the flames of journalistic focus get ramped up still further.
I think this is what has happened to the reporting of Muslims and the incidents involving Muslims worldwide - there is a steady stream of it, and it's never normally trivial. Muslims are on the publics radar and on the medias radar and no matter how unfair that may seem to you (and indeed it may well be, given the atrocities committed by others) it is a fact that can only be dealt with by getting yourselves off the front pages for a few months.
As to the question of over reporting, then I think I deal with this in part above.
Agree pretty much 100% although understanding why it happens doesn't make it right.OK, so let me start by saying that I agree with you about the media and how it portrays Islam. In one sense, as I was trying to say in my earlier post, all this PH forum does is reflect what is in the media (no surprise there) so if there are lots of stories in the media about Islam, then there will be lots on here too.
I would also agree with you that there are lots of other bad people/groups in the world who do plenty of nasty stuff that the media chooses to ignore - for whatever reasons. But that is an issue to take up with the editors of the national press. In my mind its one of those chicken and egg arguments. - why do the editors feel that the public want to see the Muslim stories rather than others..... is it because the public are anti islamic and thus the editors pander to that, or is it because there have already been so many stories and the editors follow the theme and the public follow the editors? I don't know the answer for sure, but my sense is that editors tend to just be lazy gits looking for similar stuff to tap into a level of interest that is already aroused. A good example of this is what happens after a plane crash... typically any incident in the following few weeks that involves a plane, no matter how trivial or routine gets reported by the media. If perchance the second or third incident IS serious then the flames of journalistic focus get ramped up still further.
I think this is what has happened to the reporting of Muslims and the incidents involving Muslims worldwide - there is a steady stream of it, and it's never normally trivial. Muslims are on the publics radar and on the medias radar and no matter how unfair that may seem to you (and indeed it may well be, given the atrocities committed by others) it is a fact that can only be dealt with by getting yourselves off the front pages for a few months.
As to the question of over reporting, then I think I deal with this in part above.
AMM said:
BUT, and this is where our entente cordial may come under strain, if Muslims simply did not do this stuff then there would be nothing to report!!! In fact are you not simply blaming the messenger with your views?
Seriously? You think it is possible for 8 billion muslims to remain crime free? You are acknowledging in that post that you lump 'muslims' as one where crime is concerned. Genuinely, I think that is both racist and slightly mental. Unless I have misunderstood and you've just phrased that too simplistically.AMM said:
Now, as for only holding Muslims to a high level of expectation I cannot agree. Honestly I cannot. So why are we so far apart on this? I think the disconnect is that non Muslims DO see Muslims on the streets protesting loudly about what, to many of us seems the most trivial of things, yet we do not see them protesting about what we might describe as somewhat more serious issues.
It's not as if Muslims NEVER protest. If they never protested about anything it would be reasonable to say, "well they are a quiet bunch at the best of times so it would be unreasonable to expect them to protest now." Instead, it's quite the opposite. The message conveyed, no matter how inadvertently is that Muslims only protest about things in their community that they care about. So some cartoons? protest. Wholesale abuse of white kids? silence. Is that unfair? I don't know. You tell me!
Yes I think it is unfair. You are so desperate to count muslims as 'one' that you just cant see what you are doing.It's not as if Muslims NEVER protest. If they never protested about anything it would be reasonable to say, "well they are a quiet bunch at the best of times so it would be unreasonable to expect them to protest now." Instead, it's quite the opposite. The message conveyed, no matter how inadvertently is that Muslims only protest about things in their community that they care about. So some cartoons? protest. Wholesale abuse of white kids? silence. Is that unfair? I don't know. You tell me!
So I agree that, for example, the muslims who protest about cartoons should be equally as vocal about paedophiles but your logic that because some muslims protest about cartoons then all muslims should protest about paedophiles is, at best, flawed.
AMM said:
So even here on a thread about white paedophiles , the real victims are forgotten as some people insist on venting their outrage about what they perceive as racism. I'm struggling to even type this because my head is just blown away that people like TKF et al simply ignore the victims (which in this case were babies) in favour of their own agenda!
If you are genuinely trying to tell me that the 500 pages about muslims rapists were in sympathy of the victims then I honestly don't think we can have a rational conversation.AMM said:
But I do not call that racism, since I do not consider Muslims to be a race per se.
That old chestnut. Racist/bigot potato/potato. Again, to reiterate, it is the bigotry that matters, not exactly how it is definied or whether the quantity is quite sufficient to describe it as 'rampant'
blindswelledrat said:
andymadmak said:
Thanks for the calm and considered response BSR, (genuinely)
OK, so let me start by saying that I agree with you about the media and how it portrays Islam. In one sense, as I was trying to say in my earlier post, all this PH forum does is reflect what is in the media (no surprise there) so if there are lots of stories in the media about Islam, then there will be lots on here too.
I would also agree with you that there are lots of other bad people/groups in the world who do plenty of nasty stuff that the media chooses to ignore - for whatever reasons. But that is an issue to take up with the editors of the national press. In my mind its one of those chicken and egg arguments. - why do the editors feel that the public want to see the Muslim stories rather than others..... is it because the public are anti islamic and thus the editors pander to that, or is it because there have already been so many stories and the editors follow the theme and the public follow the editors? I don't know the answer for sure, but my sense is that editors tend to just be lazy gits looking for similar stuff to tap into a level of interest that is already aroused. A good example of this is what happens after a plane crash... typically any incident in the following few weeks that involves a plane, no matter how trivial or routine gets reported by the media. If perchance the second or third incident IS serious then the flames of journalistic focus get ramped up still further.
I think this is what has happened to the reporting of Muslims and the incidents involving Muslims worldwide - there is a steady stream of it, and it's never normally trivial. Muslims are on the publics radar and on the medias radar and no matter how unfair that may seem to you (and indeed it may well be, given the atrocities committed by others) it is a fact that can only be dealt with by getting yourselves off the front pages for a few months.
As to the question of over reporting, then I think I deal with this in part above.
Agree pretty much 100% although understanding why it happens doesn't make it right.OK, so let me start by saying that I agree with you about the media and how it portrays Islam. In one sense, as I was trying to say in my earlier post, all this PH forum does is reflect what is in the media (no surprise there) so if there are lots of stories in the media about Islam, then there will be lots on here too.
I would also agree with you that there are lots of other bad people/groups in the world who do plenty of nasty stuff that the media chooses to ignore - for whatever reasons. But that is an issue to take up with the editors of the national press. In my mind its one of those chicken and egg arguments. - why do the editors feel that the public want to see the Muslim stories rather than others..... is it because the public are anti islamic and thus the editors pander to that, or is it because there have already been so many stories and the editors follow the theme and the public follow the editors? I don't know the answer for sure, but my sense is that editors tend to just be lazy gits looking for similar stuff to tap into a level of interest that is already aroused. A good example of this is what happens after a plane crash... typically any incident in the following few weeks that involves a plane, no matter how trivial or routine gets reported by the media. If perchance the second or third incident IS serious then the flames of journalistic focus get ramped up still further.
I think this is what has happened to the reporting of Muslims and the incidents involving Muslims worldwide - there is a steady stream of it, and it's never normally trivial. Muslims are on the publics radar and on the medias radar and no matter how unfair that may seem to you (and indeed it may well be, given the atrocities committed by others) it is a fact that can only be dealt with by getting yourselves off the front pages for a few months.
As to the question of over reporting, then I think I deal with this in part above.
AMM said:
BUT, and this is where our entente cordial may come under strain, if Muslims simply did not do this stuff then there would be nothing to report!!! In fact are you not simply blaming the messenger with your views?
Seriously? You think it is possible for 8 billion muslims to remain crime free? You are acknowledging in that post that you lump 'muslims' as one where crime is concerned. Genuinely, I think that is both racist and slightly mental. Unless I have misunderstood and you've just phrased that too simplistically.AMM said:
Now, as for only holding Muslims to a high level of expectation I cannot agree. Honestly I cannot. So why are we so far apart on this? I think the disconnect is that non Muslims DO see Muslims on the streets protesting loudly about what, to many of us seems the most trivial of things, yet we do not see them protesting about what we might describe as somewhat more serious issues.
It's not as if Muslims NEVER protest. If they never protested about anything it would be reasonable to say, "well they are a quiet bunch at the best of times so it would be unreasonable to expect them to protest now." Instead, it's quite the opposite. The message conveyed, no matter how inadvertently is that Muslims only protest about things in their community that they care about. So some cartoons? protest. Wholesale abuse of white kids? silence. Is that unfair? I don't know. You tell me!
Yes I think it is unfair. You are so desperate to count muslims as 'one' that you just cant see what you are doing.It's not as if Muslims NEVER protest. If they never protested about anything it would be reasonable to say, "well they are a quiet bunch at the best of times so it would be unreasonable to expect them to protest now." Instead, it's quite the opposite. The message conveyed, no matter how inadvertently is that Muslims only protest about things in their community that they care about. So some cartoons? protest. Wholesale abuse of white kids? silence. Is that unfair? I don't know. You tell me!
So I agree that, for example, the muslims who protest about cartoons should be equally as vocal about paedophiles but your logic that because some muslims protest about cartoons then all muslims should protest about paedophiles is, at best, flawed.
AMM said:
So even here on a thread about white paedophiles , the real victims are forgotten as some people insist on venting their outrage about what they perceive as racism. I'm struggling to even type this because my head is just blown away that people like TKF et al simply ignore the victims (which in this case were babies) in favour of their own agenda!
If you are genuinely trying to tell me that the 500 pages about muslims rapists were in sympathy of the victims then I honestly don't think we can have a rational conversation.AMM said:
But I do not call that racism, since I do not consider Muslims to be a race per se.
That old chestnut. Racist/bigot potato/potato. Again, to reiterate, it is the bigotry that matters, not exactly how it is definied or whether the quantity is quite sufficient to describe it as 'rampant'
1."Agree pretty much 100% although understanding why it happens doesn't make it right."
Yes I know. But understanding is the first best route to fixing it. It also (I think) demonstrates that far from it being a simple anti islamic thing its much more just a human sheeple thing
2.Seriously? You think it is possible for 8 billion muslims to remain crime free? You are acknowledging in that post that you lump 'muslims' as one where crime is concerned. Genuinely, I think that is both racist and slightly mental. Unless I have misunderstood and you've just phrased that too simplistically.
Yes, sorry, I have phrased that too simplistically. But to deny that there is a problem or should I say an "expectation issue" that many people have with regards to certainly UK muslims would be to be naive, no matter how unfair that might be. Others on PH have said more than once that Islam needs a decent PR agency to fix this. After all, if they can make Skodas acceptable it should be easy to adjust peoples thinking about Islam (That was a joke btw) And in any case I think part of the reason why so many people do lump Muslims as a single entity is because we hear so much from Muslims about how they are all one brotherhood/sisterhood etc. and that being a Muslim is more important to their identity that any other aspect of their lives such as nationality etc. Remember, the ordinary bloke in the street does not really want to get into detail. It's easy to pigeon hole (and not just Muslims!)
3. Yes I think it is unfair. You are so desperate to count muslims as 'one' that you just cant see what you are doing.
So I agree that, for example, the muslims who protest about cartoons should be equally as vocal about paedophiles but your logic that because some muslims protest about cartoons then all muslims should protest about paedophiles is, at best, flawed.
I think you have misunderstood me - I did not mean to imply that "because some muslims protest about cartoons then all muslims should protest about paedophiles" . But I appreciate that you do agree that those that do protest about the cartoons should protest about the paedos. It actually shows that we are on the same hymn sheet on this. Now if you consider again that ordinary bloke in the street who does go into detail and then think about he might view that difference in behaviour/reaction from the cartoon protestors and you begin to see why people just don't understand (and thus are wary of) Muslims in many instances.
4.If you are genuinely trying to tell me that the 500 pages about muslims rapists were in sympathy of the victims then I honestly don't think we can have a rational conversation.
No, the 500 pages were in response to multiple instances and the reaction of people to that and the reaction of people to the failure of police and social services to address the problems because of PC fears of accusations of racism, and the reactions of people to some Muslim posters who seemed intent on blaming the victims and some other muslim posters who simply denied any possible link between some aspects of Pakistani muslim culture and the attitudes to women and the creation of multiple straw man arguments to deflect attention from real issues etc etc etc etc. It was long and complex for sure. and it got heated and nasty - perhaps more than it should have done, but all sides share the blame for that. And it got personal as I can personally vouch for the threats that I received directly. There were no winners.
5.That old chestnut. Racist/bigot potato/potato. Again, to reiterate, it is the bigotry that matters, not exactly how it is definied or whether the quantity is quite sufficient to describe it as 'rampant"
OK, I am slightly disappointed that you edited me there as I did try to explain the thinking. But as I said, I would not tolerate discrimination, racism, bigotry, whatever you want to call it towards a Muslim any more than I would tolerate it towards a black man. So in essence we do agree.
Andy, I am afraid however you see it yourself I see it completely differently.
Not only do I think you are condoning racism but I think you are clearly racist yourself.
Over the past three posts you have acknowledged anti islam bigotry, defended it, and blamed muslims' deeds for that bigotry.
Your reasonable tone belies its content which is basically that it is fine and natural to be bigoted because the muslims are misbehaving. If that's not racism by definition (or bigotry if we are going to play the islma/race semantic card) then I don't know what more think you'd have to do before you can be classed as such
Not only do I think you are condoning racism but I think you are clearly racist yourself.
Over the past three posts you have acknowledged anti islam bigotry, defended it, and blamed muslims' deeds for that bigotry.
Your reasonable tone belies its content which is basically that it is fine and natural to be bigoted because the muslims are misbehaving. If that's not racism by definition (or bigotry if we are going to play the islma/race semantic card) then I don't know what more think you'd have to do before you can be classed as such
Edited by blindswelledrat on Tuesday 28th April 14:59
blindswelledrat said:
Andy, I am afraid however you see it yourself I see it completely differently.
Not only do I think you are condoning racism but I think you are clearly racist yourself.
Over the past three posts you have acknowledged anti islam bigotry, defended it, and blamed muslims' deeds for that bigotry.
Your reasonable tone belies its content which is basically that it is fine and natural to be bigoted because the muslims are misbehaving. If that's not racism by definition (or bigotry if we are going to play the islma/race semantic card) then I don't know what more think you'd have to do before you can be classed as such
Hmm. Well I will ponder a bit on what you are accusing me of. That's not how I see me. So I will think about it but I have to say that at first glance it seems to me that it's easy for you to dismiss me as racist rather than face the truth of the points I have made. Not only do I think you are condoning racism but I think you are clearly racist yourself.
Over the past three posts you have acknowledged anti islam bigotry, defended it, and blamed muslims' deeds for that bigotry.
Your reasonable tone belies its content which is basically that it is fine and natural to be bigoted because the muslims are misbehaving. If that's not racism by definition (or bigotry if we are going to play the islma/race semantic card) then I don't know what more think you'd have to do before you can be classed as such
Edited by blindswelledrat on Tuesday 28th April 14:59
Conceding to you that there has been some anti islamic sentiment on here does not make me a racist, nor does trying to explain to you why some people may be frustrated with, or have a jaundiced view of, Islam and its followers. I most certainly have not defended racism, indeed I have openly stated that I would not tolerate it. And I certainly do not think that it is fine to be bigoted. But if you don't like someone trying to explain to you why some people might be having difficulty with Muslims at the moment then I fear that the problem lies with you.
In short, it seems to me that in your mind you conflate someone disagreeing with you with someone being racist. That is not how the world works.
andymadmak said:
In short, it seems to me that in your mind you conflate someone disagreeing with you with someone being racist. That is not how the world works.
Not at all. Please don't cheapen my point by claiming it is merely because you disagree with me. I was very clear as to why I think you are:blindswelledrat said:
in the past three posts you have acknowledged anti islam bigotry, defended it, and blamed muslims' deeds for that bigotry
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32538905
Should you choose to click on link above, you will not see much evidence of grooming, or gangs, but some truly depraved paedophilic sexual depravity.
Race of accused is not referenced in article.
Should you choose to click on link above, you will not see much evidence of grooming, or gangs, but some truly depraved paedophilic sexual depravity.
Race of accused is not referenced in article.
Erudite geezer said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32538905
Should you choose to click on link above, you will not see much evidence of grooming, or gangs, but some truly depraved paedophilic sexual depravity.
Race of accused is not referenced in article.
fShould you choose to click on link above, you will not see much evidence of grooming, or gangs, but some truly depraved paedophilic sexual depravity.
Race of accused is not referenced in article.
k!!!!!Erudite geezer said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-32538905
Should you choose to click on link above, you will not see much evidence of grooming, or gangs, but some truly depraved paedophilic sexual depravity.
Race of accused is not referenced in article.
Words fail me . One day old? Sometimes I despair of the human race, I really do. Should you choose to click on link above, you will not see much evidence of grooming, or gangs, but some truly depraved paedophilic sexual depravity.
Race of accused is not referenced in article.
carinaman said:
The more I see of Javid, the more I think he's going to make an excellent Home Secretary. There's perhaps one problem with him though - he is also IMHO the exact sort of candidate the Tories need for their next PM.Digga said:
The more I see of Javid, the more I think he's going to make an excellent Home Secretary. There's perhaps one problem with him though - he is also IMHO the exact sort of candidate the Tories need for their next PM.
nazir afzal @nazirafzal Tweeted 'about time' and more. I wanted to know what he thought about it.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff