If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
They literally come from a rape culture. Sadly, I guess feminists eventually got what they were complaining about, and it's from the very people they tried to defend. Terrible irony, there.
Not a single mainstream news outlet has identified the approximately 1,000 men who congregated by the main train station in Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve and raped and sexually assaulted hundreds of women -- or their counterparts who did the same thing in Zurich, Helsinki, and elsewhere -- as Muslims. But there is little doubt that they were indeed Muslim, since they have been identified as migrants and most of the migrants are Muslims.
Most importantly, identifying the attackers as Muslim leads directly to understanding the attacks themselves, because the attackers were acting in accord with Islamic teachings.
Sexual assault plagues all cultures -- but only in Islam is it given divine sanction.
In 2006, then-Grand Mufti of Australia Taj Din al-Hilali sparked a controversy when he said:
If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it ... whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.
He was referring to women who get raped:
If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred.
Al-Hilali further complained that judges in the West were too tough on young Muslims charged with sexual assault and rape, since unveiled Western women “sway suggestively”:
[T]hen you get a judge without mercy (rahma) and gives you 65 years. But the problem, but the problem all began with who?
Sounds horrific? The Mufti was expressing a view that is both common in the Islamic world and comes directly from scripture.
I don't know who that is agreeing with the unabomber, but it surprises me not one bit that he's a right-winger. Or that he identifies with the very definition of a traitor, guilty of treason. No doubt the author considers himself a huge patriot. Somehow.
Its quite revealing that the right think they can explain away compassion, consideration and tolerance as being rooted in hate. One can only assume its because hate is all they understand themselves, and compassion is every bit the foreign concept to them that the rest of us always thought.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Not so long ago I was in total agreement with Sam Harris and Bill Maher that there was something inherent in Islam that was the root of the medieval violence, barbarism and misogyny that plagues its followers, but now I'm not so sure whether its the cause or if it simply appeals to those who are already so inclined. After all, much of that same petty score-keeping and brutal punishment and enslavement of women is present in the OT, its just become the norm to disregard those bits in more civilised societies.
Various tribes in Africa have treated women as property and fought to the death over goods or honour since long before Islam was founded. All the barbaric rules and laws, sanctioned rape, selling of women, etc etc in the bible pre-dates Islam but when it was still adhered to, those Christians and Jews who followed it were predominantly born in and lived in the middle east. So all they have done is keep to their traditions. essentially.
Now it should be mentioned out of fairness that the Roman empire was pretty big on being incredibly nasty to people it didn't like, and later on the Catholic Church retained a fondness for torturing, and also for picking on women. I'm sure they aren't the only western examples, but even they have long moved past the archaic concepts to which fundamentalist muslims like to adhere.
I can certainly still sense strong themes of vengeance and misogyny among staunch Catholics in parts of Ireland, and in many Christians in the US and Australia too. Its more difficult to get a read on European Christians and Catholics, language barrier I guess. Maybe Islam will recruit them all one day and that will answer the question as to whether it is the cause or the effect.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Not so long ago I was in total agreement with Sam Harris and Bill Maher that there was something inherent in Islam that was the root of the medieval violence, barbarism and misogyny that plagues its followers, but now I'm not so sure whether its the cause or if it simply appeals to those who are already so inclined. After all, much of that same petty score-keeping and brutal punishment and enslavement of women is present in the OT, its just become the norm to disregard those bits in more civilised societies.
Various tribes in Africa have treated women as property and fought to the death over goods or honour since long before Islam was founded. All the barbaric rules and laws, sanctioned rape, selling of women, etc etc in the bible pre-dates Islam but when it was still adhered to, those Christians and Jews who followed it were predominantly born in and lived in the middle east. So all they have done is keep to their traditions. essentially.
Now it should be mentioned out of fairness that the Roman empire was pretty big on being incredibly nasty to people it didn't like, and later on the Catholic Church retained a fondness for torturing, and also for picking on women. I'm sure they aren't the only western examples, but even they have long moved past the archaic concepts to which fundamentalist muslims like to adhere.
I can certainly still sense strong themes of vengeance and misogyny among staunch Catholics in parts of Ireland, and in many Christians in the US and Australia too. Its more difficult to get a read on European Christians and Catholics, language barrier I guess. Maybe Islam will recruit them all one day and that will answer the question as to whether it is the cause or the effect.
Maybe this is a surface analysis, but here are what I feel are the key differences.
For all its faults, the OT is pretty damn enlightened for the 2nd millennium BC.
This gave the ancient Hebrews a leg up in terms of enlightenment, and after a couple thousand years of fanwank, that enlightenment smoothed out the rough edges to the point where their culture begat Jesus, who was enlightened enough the vast bulk of his teachings are useful to someone in the modern age. Even someone who isn't religious... they're that good.
Are women property in the Christian world, or is that just Muslims?
In Christendom they're 1:1, but in Islam they're worth 4:1.
Originally Posted by subego
Maybe this is a surface analysis, but here are what I feel are the key differences.
For all its faults, the OT is pretty damn enlightened for the 2nd millennium BC.
This gave the ancient Hebrews a leg up in terms of enlightenment, and after a couple thousand years of fanwank, that enlightenment smoothed out the rough edges to the point where their culture begat Jesus, who was enlightened enough the vast bulk of his teachings are useful to someone in the modern age. Even someone who isn't religious... they're that good.
Mohammed was a warlord.
Good analysis. The OT catches a lot of flack, but frankly, its laws were very "liberal" for its timeframe. Then Jesus came along and cleaned up the areas that were still quite barbaric, giving a solid framework for equality, justice, and social compassion. Muhammad then came along and threw everything back to the OT morality, and in certain aspects it's even worse. To be a good Muslim, by established Quranic standards, you must be a bad person, by modern Western standards.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Are women property in the Christian world, or is that just Muslims?
They have a price in the OT. Hymens come with a 'you break it, you buy it' policy. Christians have been ignoring that rule for over a millennia. Muslims not so much. Though I gather women are traded more for favours, politics or honour (ironically) than cash or goods these days.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
"The reason why a woman gets raped is because of the way she dress. Women dress so provocatively so much that they receive too much attention for themselves and that attention at times leads to death.... You should take your example from the way Muslim women dress. Why does Muslim women who wear long dress and covers her head aren’t targeted for sex attacks?"
"I am suggesting that Toronto becomes the first City in North America to introduce laws that would make it illegal for women to dress provocatively. If we do this the other cities would follow... I would to end this letter by invite you to embrace Islam so that you may live in security. If you come within the fold of Islam, Allâh will give you double reward."
Yes, Islam = rape culture, and Western women are to blame, you sluts. **** these guys, there's no place in Western society for these ignorant fascists.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Gotta love the propaganda. No socialist manipulation there, not at all.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You have to try it. Watch the faces of your "advisors" as you select answers to the loaded questions. It's freaking hilarious.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Damn america and its inefficient conservative bureaucracy used to fuel & make excuses for its chauvinistic culture.
Holy shit! The meme has become (a very sad) reality. "Oops, I slipped and fell. Honest!"
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
It's true. When this first started to break the regressive Intersectionals were screaming about "toxic masculinity" and "rape culture", then when it came out these guys were Islamic and it was a planned attack they went completely silent. These migrants are from REAL rape cultures, where women are treated like livestock, and I believe that truly terrifies these feminists.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
My sides! My sides!! Oh Jesus, I can't stop laughing. I thought it was a parody at first, but the Ruby Rod (see 5th Element) clone is a black fascist and has apparently enslaved the bearded white guy (anglo Uncle Ruckus) and has trained him to do his bidding. I can't... I.... Oh for ****'s sake...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I guess that's one way to ensure poor, "defenseless" women stay safe.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I also read that men must be taught not to rape, which means that they are all born with the capability to rape and have zero instinct to know that taking a woman with violence is improper. Thankfully, a man only has to be told the phrase “rape is bad” at some point after puberty by an overweight feminist to definitively stop his future brutal and bloody rape career. It’s a miracle that more men have not raped their mothers, babysitters, and sisters before being taught in college that rape is actually not a good thing.
Looks pretty obvious to me too, but I don't expect radfems to take the time to actually read it. Sure, PUAs are rather pathetic, but to go so far as to ban them? To me this just seems like another case of women being perceived as too weak and immature to fend for themselves, making the gender out to be little more than damsels in distress (a trope that, ironically, feminists claim to despise).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Oh, and the slavery reparations collection plate is coming around again too, because "poor disadvantaged" college kids have been so negatively impacted by something that never happened to them. Minority Millennials have no shame, they'll openly beg to anyone, no matter that they live in the most prosperous society in the history of humanity. What an embarrassment.
Sorry snowflakes, you'll have to pay your own way. However, if you corner the right person you might be able to guilt them into paying for your lunch, if they have that app installed.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I have no words for this level of absurd double-think. How does anyone reach this state? That's the most ignorant shit I've read so far this year. I'll bet actually being raped would change their minds.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I have no words for this level of absurd double-think. How does anyone reach this state? That's the most ignorant shit I've read so far this year. I'll bet actually being raped would change their minds.
Did you look into the reality of this or just regurgitate the right-wing blather you consume with what seems to be an unholy combination of rage and glee?
The actual story is that a bunch of vigilante meatheads went on a rampage of indiscriminate violence against immigrants using sexual assaults as a justification. Enlightened Swedes, even some dreaded feminists, found this abhorrent. This is what they are speaking out against.
The message is 'not in my name', not 'I would rather be raped that have you protect me."
But reality doesn't fit your narrative so you ignore it.
I expect you will respond with yet another article about this that doesn't actually support your position, followed by some insults, and a very clever use of an emoticon or two.
Or maybe you really did put me on ignore. Either way, I hope others do some research on the facts rather than accept your mindless drivel.
I have no words for this level of absurd double-think. How does anyone reach this state? That's the most ignorant shit I've read so far this year. I'll bet actually being raped would change their minds.
I get the impression this is a pretty one sided telling of events. This article doesn't have any sources.
You allegedly had a swarm of c. 200 masked vigilantes.
In your experience, how often does such a group dispense actual justice?
Not saying it's impossible, but I'd put money on "hooligans" before "solid citizens".
Well, a path needs to be navigated between dealing with the nastier elements of the flood of Middle Eastern refugees, and avoiding what amounts to a race war. I'll fully admit this is no simple proposition.
From over here, that path seems to have been navigated poorly. Poorly enough if what this article is trying to imply had happened, it wouldn't completely bowl me over
Well, a path needs to be navigated between dealing with the nastier elements of the flood of Middle Eastern refugees, and avoiding what amounts to a race war. I'll fully admit this is no simple proposition.
From over here, that path seems to have been navigated poorly. Poorly enough if what this article is trying to imply had happened, it wouldn't completely bowl me over
It is an absolute disaster in Europe and it is going to get much, much worse before it gets better.
I can say that regardless of what you have read on this forum, there is not a wave of liberal apologists excusing the behaviour of some refugees. I firmly believe that the blackout of reporting on the waves of sexual assaults on New Years Eve was not the result of progressivism gone mad, but by the COMPLETELY MISGUIDED desire to limit incidents like was seen in Sweden- indiscriminate vigilante justice. While I can understand the logic behind it, it was the wrong move and was met, quite rightly, by public outrage by pretty much all facets of society, including feminists and progressives.
No one has any idea how to deal with the reality we are faced with, and along the way, people are going to make dumb decisions.
EDIT: To clarify- I don't think the desire to limit violence was misguided- but the choices they made were.
Why did they prioritize avoiding vigilante violence above everything else? IOW, what was guiding them to their misguided choices?
The most obvious (though not necessarily correct) hypothesis is the decider was of the mind "this takes priority because this group is disadvantaged". That's where the progressivism accusation comes from. The idea priorities were set based entirely on relative social standing versus something more extensive, which would account for the social standing, but ultimately come to the conclusion that's a lesser priority in this scenario.
CTP once again blatantly mischaracterizing his own source? Imagine that.
What you talkin' `bout, dogpile? "Mischaracterizing my own source"? The source, point blank, says; Swedish feminists: “Please don’t protect us if we get raped by immigrants”. Now, that statement may be false, it's definitely hyperbolic, but I'm in no way "mischaracterizing" it. Do you understand what that word even means? Given your track record (you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed), it's apparent that you don't. This wouldn't be the first time, or even the 101st time, that you've been thrown into confusion by your pathological need to contribute to bashing me. It's entertaining.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Why did they prioritize avoiding vigilante violence above everything else? IOW, what was guiding them to their misguided choices?
The most obvious (though not necessarily correct) hypothesis is the decider was of the mind "this takes priority because this group is disadvantaged". That's where the progressivism accusation comes from. The idea priorities were set based entirely on relative social standing versus something more extensive, which would account for the social standing, but ultimately come to the conclusion that's a lesser priority in this scenario.
The way basically everybody else did.
If that is the conclusion you have come to, either it's being reported very different in the US than Europe or you aren't paying attention. There is really no reason to believe that decision to keep the assaults quiet was a case of granting leniency to a disadvantaged group, the police were investigating and trying to bring the perpetrators to justice. What they were concerned about was that by publicising the assaults, they would be lighting a match in a tinder box. The situation is beyond unstable in many European cities. There have been outbreaks of violence between locals and refugees. We have had violent confrontations in the UK between opposing groups about the refugee crisis. The police and city officials made a call, perhaps with noble intentions, that was totally misguided and clearly made things even worse.
This wasn't about coddling offenders, it was about keeping civil order. Riots and indiscriminate violence will not just hurt refugees.
Where are you getting "coddling offenders" from my post?
I imagine the people the policy intended to protect were innocent refugees.
Apologies for misunderstanding.
However, that doesn't change my point. They were trying to protect civil order. Rioting and indiscriminate violence would be extremely harmful to more that just the refugees.
Then what do you consider misguided about their decision making process?
I would think it's obvious.
Morally and ethically it was wrong because concealing the crimes did not alert people to the very real danger in their midst.
Practically, it was wrong because the only hope of the strategy working was to keep the crimes hushed-up, and of course there was no way that was going to be possible.
Finally, in the tumultuous times we are living in (and it's only going to get worse), people need to have trust and faith in their leaders. This has only served to erode it.
As I said, I understand the thinking, but it was clearly a poor decision made under pressure that I'm sure they regret and has had zero benefit.
Do people really trust their leaders? I know I don't.
Well I trust them to lie, cheat, steal, game the system and do favours for their friends. And to do things in their own best interests rather than the public's.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Morally and ethically it was wrong because concealing the crimes did not alert people to the very real danger in their midst.
Practically, it was wrong because the only hope of the strategy working was to keep the crimes hushed-up, and of course there was no way that was going to be possible.
Finally, in the tumultuous times we are living in (and it's only going to get worse), people need to have trust and faith in their leaders. This has only served to erode it.
As I said, I understand the thinking, but it was clearly a poor decision made under pressure that I'm sure they regret and has had zero benefit.
Thanks for the answer! Let me think this through a bit more.
Do people really trust their leaders? I know I don't.
Well I trust them to lie, cheat, steal, game the system and do favours for their friends. And to do things in their own best interests rather than the public's.
That we can agree on.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Do people really trust their leaders? I know I don't.
Well I trust them to lie, cheat, steal, game the system and do favours for their friends. And to do things in their own best interests rather than the public's.
While you make a fine point, and perhaps I am wearing rose coloured glasses, I start from a position of trust that my local police and local politicians, at least in a general sense, take the safety of their constituents seriously. As you move up the chain from local to national, that faith definitely starts to erode. Quickly. The disconnect between local and national probably comes down to accountability. The local folks are here in the community.
However, that doesn't change my point. They were trying to protect civil order. Rioting and indiscriminate violence would be extremely harmful to more that just the refugees.
I apologize for jumping back a step, but I think this is what I'm getting tangled up on.
The disruption of civil order I imagine happening from releasing the news is the type of thing in the original story. The violence would be almost wholly directed towards refugees, or those believed to be refugees.
Assuming this is too superficial an analysis, what's the mechanism I'm missing? The one turning my scenario, which I guess you could call "discriminate violence", to the indiscriminate.
I apologize for jumping back a step, but I think this is what I'm getting tangled up on.
The disruption of civil order I imagine happening from releasing the news is the type of thing in the original story. The violence would be almost wholly directed towards refugees, or those believed to be refugees.
Assuming this is too superficial an analysis, what's the mechanism I'm missing? The one turning my scenario, which I guess you could call "discriminate violence", to the indiscriminate.
Mobs are indiscriminate. It is easy to imagine scenarios like were seen in the US after 9/11 where Sikhs were assaulted and had their businesses vandalised because they were mistaken by mouth-breathers to be Muslims.
The likelihood of an angry and unruly mob getting their targets even mostly right in next to zero. The likelihood that the overall social situation would improve after an outbreak of large-scale violence, indiscriminate or discriminate, is also next to zero.
I have to say, I'm a little bit puzzled that I have to defend the idea that mob violence committed against any group of people is not a good idea and that you would not have to be a left-wing nut job to want to avoid it.
While you make a fine point, and perhaps I am wearing rose coloured glasses, I start from a position of trust that my local police and local politicians, at least in a general sense, take the safety of their constituents seriously. As you move up the chain from local to national, that faith definitely starts to erode. Quickly. The disconnect between local and national probably comes down to accountability. The local folks are here in the community.
I would say the local politicians are the most corrupt because they are under far less scrutiny. Most people don't even know their names when you get low enough so they don't even know who to blame when someone does something unforgivable. Especially if they were all complicit.
The point about public interest is a good one though. In the UK there is usually enough of an overlap between whats best for most people, the right thing to do, and what will get someone re-elected.
It says a lot about America that what gets you elected has considerably less overlap with the people's best interests.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I would say the local politicians are the most corrupt because they are under far less scrutiny. Most people don't even know their names when you get low enough so they don't even know who to blame when someone does something unforgivable. Especially if they were all complicit.
The point about public interest is a good one though. In the UK there is usually enough of an overlap between whats best for most people, the right thing to do, and what will get someone re-elected.
It says a lot about America that what gets you elected has considerably less overlap with the people's best interests.
I'm having to think about this, but I suppose when I say accountability, I mean two things.
1) You can walk into a local police station and talk to someone. You may very well know your local constable and/or community support officers.
2) As for local politicians, they may be under less scrutiny by the press, but decisions they make (and even ones that they don't but are imposed on them by central government) have a very direct relationship to the community. Much of what happens in Westminster is somewhat abstract. In my day to day life, how often the bins are collected has a larger impact than Trident. When the council makes a terrible decision with negative consequences, it's noticed and people react. When it's central government, we shrug our shoulders and say 'well of course they got it wrong.'
But at the end of the day, it may be misguided, but I would trust that my local council has a vested interest in my day to day safety and well being to a much greater degree than parliament.
I have to say, I'm a little bit puzzled that I have to defend the idea that mob violence committed against any group of people is not a good idea and that you would not have to be a left-wing nut job to want to avoid it.
I've got 12 hours of driving to do today, so I may be a little slow in my response, but I have the information I need. Thank you!
I did however want to address what I quoted above. I'm not asking you to defend your position, I'm just trying to figure out what that position is. Now that I know, I can form a relevant argument.
Once provided, you are most welcome to be confused and or as annoyed as hell by that.
For those keeping track. This idiot, Melissa Click; assaulted a student reporter, actively worked to oppress freedom of the press at a public event, and then urged students to lie to investigators about her involvement, despite there being video footage of her misdeeds, all while serving as, get this, an associate professor of communications. That's right, she's a journalism professor who doesn't understand the 1st Amendment. So now that she's rightfully been charged with assault, and suspended from her post, the BLM boobs have set her up as a martyr, ironically stating: “It is unfortunate that Melissa Click has become the victim of social and political violence.” When the only real violence involved was her trying to "get muscle" to abuse and remove the reporter who dared to stand up to her and document the event. IOW, doing his damned job.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
For those keeping track. This idiot, Melissa Click; assaulted a student reporter, actively worked to oppress freedom of the press at a public event, and then urged students to lie to investigators about her involvement, despite there being video footage of her misdeeds, all while serving as, get this, an associate professor of communications. That's right, she's a journalism professor who doesn't understand the 1st Amendment. So now that she's rightfully been charged with assault, and suspended from her post, the BLM boobs have set her up as a martyr, ironically stating: “It is unfortunate that Melissa Click has become the victim of social and political violence.” When the only real violence involved was her trying to "get muscle" to abuse and remove the reporter who dared to stand up to her and document the event. IOW, doing his damned job.
It's a shame that you have a perfectly good point here, that Melissa Click was entirely out of line and those defending her are delusional, but then take it one step further and conflate it with a 1st Amendment issue.
I think it's obvious that it's you rather than her that doesn't understand the 1st Amendment. If you would like to educate yourself on issues regarding the 1st Amendment and Universities, read here.
**** these guys, there's no place in Western society for these ignorant fascists.
The meme has become (a very sad) reality. "Oops, I slipped and fell. Honest!"
Top