Quote:
Originally Posted by Marn
Violent extremism is not the gold standard for a problematic mindset among a minority population
I didn't claim that it was. I said that criticisms of common Islamic views on women, sexual minorities, or the tendency towards anti-semitism shouldn't be conflated with problems involving extremism. Since so much discussion here and elsewhere is driven by concerns about violence, the distinction is important. The kinds of political responses legitimated by one set of concerns is a lot different from the other in a western, pluralistic political context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marn
So why do Muslims need to be a protected group? Even going as far as granting them terms like Islamophobia to divert relevant discussion, what other groups generally criticized are granted with a phobia tag to avert such criticism? It certainly doesn't make much sense to me.
Marxistophobia, Hinduophobia, Naziophobia, why not these?
I have never made the claim that Muslims need to be a "protected group". If that is in reference to the previous "PC" rules in this forum, those rules no longer exist.
If Marxistophobia or Hinduophobia were actually relevant phenomena in the real world, I would have the same perspective on them that I do on Islamaphobia. That perspective would be that it's perfectly reasonable to criticize beliefs, practices, laws, or etc., especially when those criticisms are reasonably targeted, but it's unreasonable to over-generalize and use those over-generalizations to justify prejudicial treatment of every member of the category. That's true whether the target group is Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Marxists, Republicans, Democrats, ethnic groups, racial groups, women, men, or any other large and diverse social category. The comparison to nazis is wrong-headed precisely because "nazi" isn't a diverse category at all.