Truck Drives Through Crowd in Nice, France

[Freefall11111]

No we don't! Do you think for a minute that if France was engulfed in a civil war that Syria would take in a single refugee?

Whataboutism isn't a valid response.

Also, what happens when the civil war is over, do we just tell them to go back?! What if they refuse!?

Many of them will leave on their own. Those that remain should be integrated as much as possible.

[Stucco Houses]

Sorry then, I'm not aware of how attacking me does anything on my arguments. I think my flakiness and unwillingness to debate about whether brown people are okay or not with racists on the internet is entirely unrelated to the fact that not being a racist imperialist is the modern, fact-based, and non-evil point of view.

Regardless, I'm not going to submit to your baseless claims. I've been debating quite dutifully for one tasked with doing so against half a dozen frothing anti-Islam posters who are entirely willing to tell me about how stupid Muslims are and how good it was back when white people were entirely on top rather than mostly on top. Please, kindly, step off of me and focus on argumentation.

Your flakiness and unwillingness to debate is not on racism or whether we should oppress brown people. It is on the fundamental ideals which underpin your ideology. That is what I wish to debate. You will not defend them because you can't defend them. You'd rather cry "racist" and take the easy route out.

I have always provided sources for my claims as well as solid examples. It is not baseless in the slightest. I will not step off you until you address the accusations made to both myself and those of us in the West by your broad brushstroke of guilt. Your insult to those who live in the poverty countries by claiming they all lack agency and can't decide why they do things. If anybody is a racist here, it is yourself.

I've very much debated the underpinnings of my ideology, like opposition to colonialism and focus on root causes rather than jumping to the familiar arms of racism when scary brown people do scary brown things. Sorry, but sometimes when racism gets called on you, it's your fault, not the stupid dumb liberal's for insinuating that maybe you've said something racist.

Oh, the classic "liberals are the real racists for saying that maybe brown people are poor because white people stole all their things". I'm not denying anyone agency, just saying that terrorism happens because of the languishing poverty left in the wake of colonialist activities like the US war in Iraq which directly led to the foundation and prosperity of ISIS.

Don't for a second think you've got the facts on me. The facts say all human beings are largely the same and only our situations define us. Muslims are not dumb and neither their religion nor their ethnicity makes them terrorize.

Sorry then, I'm not aware of how attacking me does anything on my arguments. I think my flakiness and unwillingness to debate about whether brown people are okay or not with racists on the internet is entirely unrelated to the fact that not being a racist imperialist is the modern, fact-based, and non-evil point of view.

Regardless, I'm not going to submit to your baseless claims. I've been debating quite dutifully for one tasked with doing so against half a dozen frothing anti-Islam posters who are entirely willing to tell me about how stupid Muslims are and how good it was back when white people were entirely on top rather than mostly on top. Please, kindly, step off of me and focus on argumentation.

What the hell... you know that Islam is a religion not a race right? Or that being White isn't a religion? Religious discrimination is in no way "racist", and in no way are they supporting "white imperialism" by disagreeing with the viewpoints of a religion.

Yes, surprisingly, it has crossed my fragile liberal mind that Islam is not a race, yes. There are white Muslims, black Muslims, and Muslims of nearly every nationality and ethnicity.

The fact is that many people in this thread speak to the prejudice against Muslims characterized by a racist view of the world and seem to blame impoverished people for the situations they were placed in by colonialism and still seem confused as to why impoverished people would dare commit terrorist acts.

Right, the stupid Muslims are just too stupid to understand their stupid religion is fake and evil. Right. But you're no bigot, just tellin' it like it is.

I don't recall calling Muslims stupid, ever.

Just for whatever reason they seem incapable of recognizing the obvious bigotry and wanton violence and destruction in their religion (all religions are fake, so I don't know what you're on about there) while Jews and Christians have done an infinitely better job (Hindus had the nice headstart of having a pretty peaceful religion to start with).

Maybe that reason is, Oh, they have a lot more bigotry and violent teachings to overcome in the first place? And its way more ingrained in their culture?

Or that their moderates just call themselves that so they can absolve themselves of terrorism and extremism as they do nothing to stop gays being thrown off their roofs? And that their liberals are more concerned with whining on the internet about conservatives being mean to Islam than they are actually solving the goddamn problems in their own religion?

I'd reiterate:

Right, the stupid Muslims are just too stupid to understand their stupid religion is fake and evil. Right. But you're no bigot, just tellin' it like it is.

However, you seem not to understand that wacky conservative Christians and Jews exist too, that moderate Muslims make up the vast majority of Muslims, and that the poverty and imperialism experienced by the Middle East are the likely reason for the terrorism and intolerance in those countries. Ever wondered why Eastern Europe treats its gays so poorly? It's not Christianity, it's poverty. Ever wondered why Buddhists in Burma kill Muslims in Burma? It's not Buddhism, it's poverty.

If you don't understand that poverty underlies terrorism of every breed, you concede to bigotry, that you believe Muslims are worse at addressing the ideological problems which justify terrorism in so many non-Muslim instances.

[Freefall11111]

Can the "how many" be 1? One refugee to the USA, there we go, that's our *cough* moral obligation *cough* solved.

Thankfully you're not in charge.

Never mind that those countries wouldn't lift a finger to help the west if we wanted to send them refugees, we're so morally obliged.

Whataboutism isn't a valid response.

[Freefall11111]

We do have a moral obligation to take on refugees. The only question is how many and what policies we pursue to integrate them until the war is over.

Well you only have a moral obligation to protect the refugees that actually reach your country. You have no obligation to seek them out. The burden of proof is on the refugee to prove the are a refugee. And you can house refugees in camps. You do not have to resettle them in your country.

None of this contradicts what I said.

[Novus America]

We do have a moral obligation to take on refugees. The only question is how many and what policies we pursue to integrate them until the war is over.

Can the "how many" be 1? One refugee to the USA, there we go, that's our *cough* moral obligation *cough* solved.

Never mind that those countries wouldn't lift a finger to help the west if we wanted to send them refugees, we're so morally obliged.

The US has no obligation to Syrian refugees whatsoever as we do not border Syria. You have no obligation to seek out refugees thousands of miles away.

[Stucco Houses]

The West isn't completely composed of whites, you are correct. Astute.

You aren't a centrist if you feel that Western imperialism hasn't had a huge role in building the world's current nearly entirely Western power core of Western Europe and North America.

I guess I'm not a centrist anymore, because the holy stucco house has spoken. Nevermind my centre-right political compass, or my own damn word.

If I say I'm a centrist and then spout off about Marx for half an hour, I have lied in the first instance. You can believe a white supremacist revisionist history or be a political centrist, not both. Sometimes you can't combine ideologies without cognitive dissonance.

[Novus America]

Well you only have a moral obligation to protect the refugees that actually reach your country. You have no obligation to seek them out. The burden of proof is on the refugee to prove the are a refugee. And you can house refugees in camps. You do not have to resettle them in your country.

None of this contradicts what I said.

Well it comes down to what do you mean by "we". Only the countries refugees actually reach on their own have an obligation to them.

[Stucco Houses]

Sorry then, I'm not aware of how attacking me does anything on my arguments. I think my flakiness and unwillingness to debate about whether brown people are okay or not with racists on the internet is entirely unrelated to the fact that not being a racist imperialist is the modern, fact-based, and non-evil point of view.

Regardless, I'm not going to submit to your baseless claims. I've been debating quite dutifully for one tasked with doing so against half a dozen frothing anti-Islam posters who are entirely willing to tell me about how stupid Muslims are and how good it was back when white people were entirely on top rather than mostly on top. Please, kindly, step off of me and focus on argumentation.

I should, perhaps in that context, mention that there are - especially in salafist subculture in Germany and among ISIS itself - many Islamists who're actually ethnically "white" People of european descent.

No doubt, but let's not mistake what these posters mean when they talk about Muslims. It's a racist narrative.

[The Celtic British Isles]

No we don't! Do you think for a minute that if France was engulfed in a civil war that Syria would take in a single refugee?

Whataboutism isn't a valid response.

Also, what happens when the civil war is over, do we just tell them to go back?! What if they refuse!?

Many of them will leave on their own. Those that remain should be integrated as much as possible.

OK, so the west is obligated to act at the imperial protector of the world, and answer the third worlds beck and call when it is in trouble, and expect NOTHING in return. It's basically imperialism, only it is the COLONIES that rule

[Freefall11111]

None of this contradicts what I said.

Well it comes down to what do you mean by "we". Only the countries refugees actually reach on their own have an obligation to them.

Legal? Sure. Moral? No.

[Freefall11111]

Whataboutism isn't a valid response.


Many of them will leave on their own. Those that remain should be integrated as much as possible.

OK, so the west is obligated to act at the imperial protector of the world, and answer the third worlds beck and call when it is in trouble, and expect NOTHING in return. It's basically imperialism, only it is the COLONIES that rule

Strawman. Try again.

[Stucco Houses]

Yep, since the descendant must feel guilt for their ancestors actions in your worldview, so will the Muslims

But it's different, they aren't white scum.

Let's save the crying for the plight of the white man, eh?

[The Alma Mater]

But it's different, they aren't white scum.

Let's save the crying for the plight of the white man, eh?

#WhiteLivesMatter.

[Asigna]

Nice terrorist attack.... Not nice at all.

[Novus America]

Well it comes down to what do you mean by "we". Only the countries refugees actually reach on their own have an obligation to them.

Legal? Sure. Moral? No.

Why do we have a moral obligation to seek them out? Those who reach us and can prove a legitimate need sure, but we have no duty to seek them out. Moral or legal.

[Liriena]

We do have a moral obligation to take on refugees. The only question is how many and what policies we pursue to integrate them until the war is over.

No we don't!

I don't know if a moral obligation, but I'm pretty sure you have a legal obligation.

Do you think for a minute that if France was engulfed in a civil war that Syria would take in a single refugee?

When you say "Syria", do you mean the people of Syria, the current government of Syria, or a hypothetical government of Syria?

Also, what happens when the civil war is over, do we just tell them to go back?!

From what I gather... yup, pretty much. If French law is similar to German law, the French state is only supposed to grant the refugees asylum until the crisis is over, and unless they legally seek to become permanent residents, the refugees cannot stay beyond that.

What if they refuse!?

If they refuse but do not seek to legally become permanent residents? I'm pretty sure you can deport them.

[The Celtic British Isles]

OK, so the west is obligated to act at the imperial protector of the world, and answer the third worlds beck and call when it is in trouble, and expect NOTHING in return. It's basically imperialism, only it is the COLONIES that rule

Strawman. Try again.

How is it a strawman?

[Minzerland]

But it's different, they aren't white scum.

Let's save the crying for the plight of the white man, eh?

Sorry, we can't, they are white colonising scum, those O' so poor Muslims who've done no wrong are the victims. Did I mention that white people are scum?

[Stucco Houses]

Let's save the crying for the plight of the white man, eh?

#WhiteLivesMatter.

It's like when people say that the plight of white sharecroppers in any way comes close to the systematic cultural genocide of African slaves.

[Patridam]

Thousands of Muslims are fighting against Islamic fundamentalism as we speak. In Syria and Iraq, Muslim soldiers, paramilitaries and police officers are fighting ISIS. Thousands more march against terrorism while several members of the clergy cooperate with governments.

Oh, wow, thousands; out of 1.7 billion Muslims. That's like a whole 0.001 percent, wow. Really reform is inevitable at kind of massive portion, got me there. /sarcasm

Now, don't get me wrong, those few Muslims are brave.They are the Muslims we should celebrate, not the first world ones on social media. But they are also a ridiculously small portion

As for Christians and Jews doing "an infinitely better job"? A bit disingenuous.

Fair enough, because for it to really be infinity, Muslims would need to be infinitely religiously violent, which isn't possible; or Jews and Christians would need to be never ever religiously violent. Ah, math. Perhaps "Jews and Christians are doing a much, much, much better job of refuting the bad parts of their teachings than Muslims" would be more apt.

[Stucco Houses]

Let's save the crying for the plight of the white man, eh?

Sorry, we can't, they are white colonising scum, those O' so poor Muslims who've done no wrong.

Of course, it's a hard world to be white in, what with all the people who call you racist when you hate other groups.

[Liriena]

For instance? Those who cite Leviticus as a justification for opposing LGBT+ rights. They are, sadly, quite plentiful.

I am well aware that those laws in the Old Testament are not, in a strict sense, binding to Christians. Menassa, NSG's beloved scholar of everything Jewish, made that quite clear on several occasions. However, there are several Christians who are either unaware of this, or knowingly disregard it.

Mind you, I am not arguing that "two wrongs make a right" or anything of the sort. As I said, there is much about the Quran that I find intolerable, and I for one am not interested in converting to Islam, nor am I going to try and engage in apologism for the Islamic holy text.

Those people would be what we call "Biblical literalists", and nobody likes them and nor are they a very strong or numerous group.

However, categorizing homosexual sex as a sin is doctrine in the majority of the Church, based mostly in the Epistles which does not prescribe any kind of real earthly punishment for it. It is stated more as a spiritual issue than anything else.

No argument there.

[Impireacht]

-snip-

Waait so what I'm getting from this now is this:
Religious Extremism is not a result of religion o.o
"neither their religion nor their ethnicity makes them terrorize."
I agree that ethnicity doesn't play a role, but you can't really be an Islamic extremist without following Islam...

Again, so as you agreed there are Muslims of every ethnicity. Explain how a distate for the religion is in any way racist, people weren't putting down the ethnicity, they were putting down the religion.

[Minzerland]

Sorry, we can't, they are white colonising scum, those O' so poor Muslims who've done no wrong.

Of course, it's a hard world to be white in, what with all the people who call you racist when you hate other groups.

Let's save the hypocrisy. You believe that hereditary guilt is a thing, Oh, not to mention only white people should be guilty for their ancestors crimes; whilst ignoring the crimes of others because they aren't white.

[The Celtic British Isles]

Sorry, we can't, they are white colonising scum, those O' so poor Muslims who've done no wrong.

Of course, it's a hard world to be white in, what with all the people who call you racist when you hate other groups.

Don't feed the trolls