Heh, I was in a discussion where I said Allahu Akbar is the most common Muslim phrase but then I remembered it might take 2nd considering Muslims are just like anybody else and 'skip church'.

+1

Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

I'm not sure which posts you thought were fine but there is no issue that I pretend doesn't exist.

You have the wrong end of the stick. The PC approach is against the sort of post from Love Sosa that you now agree with me on. It's language that attacks/denigrate/negatively stereotype/etc Muslims just because they are Muslim that I have an issue with. There's no PC protection for individuals or extremist organisations such as ISIS. Nor for governments - we had a thread on the Indonesian caning of homosexuals for example.

Because he's wrong and you're an idiot are my guesses.

Yeah. Going by the numbers they aren't fanatical. That goes for service attendance and self identification. Of course, numbers aren't exactly the forte of the Islamophobic.

My money is on As-salamu alaykum.

Right, that's what I had to bump up to the #1 spot.

How am I wrong?

ISIS does not cut it, Islamism and extremism is way more widespread than that and even those who would be considered moderates in Muslim majority countries are still problematic by western standards. This also extends to western countries, the most radical beliefs are held by Muslims, largely due to religious indoctrination.

How do you square this with you 'Muslims are a vulnerable group' Chezlaw?

That graph does not actually support the claim that most/many Muslims are radical extremists. For a couple reasons

1) It's not valid to conflate "problematic" views on topics like homosexuality or women's rights with violent extremism

2) It can be true simultaneously that a disproportionate amount of the kind of violence being asked about in this survey is done by Muslims, but that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not involved in this kind of violence. These two statements can be true simultaneously precisely because the overall amount of violence in this category is still quite low.

Note: that doesn't mean it's not a problem. To be clear: Islamist radicalism is a real problem. I don't think anyone reasonable disagrees with that statement. But again, the problem is the misuse of data to try to argue that the problem justifies treating all or most Muslims indiscriminately as potential terrorists.

Violent extremism is not the gold standard for a problematic mindset among a minority population, I don't even consider anti Jew sentiment a radical viewpoint among Muslims, it is rather mainstream. The circles of doom posted by TS were not just some cute graphic, it actually represents disturbingly mainstream views among all Muslims.

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 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.

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.

I disagree, Islam has a sliding scale towards extremism IMO. Change the view of the majority Muslim population to a more tolerant view would go a long way combating extremism.

Oh. I remember the recent forum rules update with the term Islamophobia as a bannable offence, did you recently get rid of this? Sorry I haven't been reading every thread closely.

Anyhow, only Islamophobia has caught on in the West, despite Islam being the most problematic religion worldwide, since the 70's many nations have taken a turn towards a Theocratic rule and the Muslim Brotherhood has been gaining power behind the scenes advocating policies that would get anyone repeating them labeled an Islamophobe in the West.

We have a real concern, being concerned is not a phobia, I see no reason why this particular group needs that distinction.

The inclusion of the term "Islamaphobia" in the list is by example. The list is not exhaustive. Posts which go beyond the boundaries of the site rules into bigotry against other groups will also be moderated.

I agree that mere concern about various issues is not phobia. I've said as much before, although you may not have seen it.

No one will be sanctioned merely for expressing concerns or criticisms.

I think it should be removed from the list, I appreciate your more nuanced view though.

,

I heard that former ISIS fghters are going back to Sweden and Britain and given the same benefits of unenployed and impoverished people. They are being given a second chance to reintegrate into society

All in the name of tolerance.....Is this for realz? Is this one of those CNN stories?

I doubt it's significantly different in practice and one of the objections to the PC rule was it trivialised such things as Islamophobia - it didn't but I accept it could have given that impression to some.

The people who respond with a multiquote in this manner, rather than actually, like, doing an actual multiquote, are literally worse than 10 Hitlers.

Stop complaining and just deal with it.

Same goes for you/Marn and immigrants.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

He added like 3 extra steps to the whole process. I was just about to try to reply again butnahh.

It wasnt me who posted the video and no where did I ask you to flesh out an argument for me.

You said that he runs through a list a check list of right wing talking points and moans about not being allowed an opinion im just asking you which points you feel are right wing talking points and more importantly why you think those talking points are wrong?

I didn't watch the video. That was my psychic prediction.