The Danish government said on Friday it was proposing legislation that would make it illegal to burn copies of the Koran in public places, part of the Nordic country's effort to de-escalate tensions with Muslim countries.
Nah, Islamism (not Islam) promotes an extremely aggressive stance against anything that may offend them. And guess what? Islamism is thriving in Muslim countries
This. The very essence of our free, liberal western democracies is threatened when we bow to religious demands. That’s completely misguided tolerance and a defeatist attitude towards extremism.
If a religion is not compatible with an open and pluralist society then it’s not the society that has to change, it’s the religious dipshits who have to cope with it or honestly go and fuck themselves somewhere else.
I mean, if we step back and observe the situation, we can see the best strategy is to threaten violence.
Why? Because one side wanted to impose their sensibilities on the other, threatened them with violent retribution, and then got what they wanted. It WORKS.
And now that it is a proven strategy, there is no reason to bother exploring other alternatives. Threatening violence is EASY. It’s the lowest and simplest rhetoric available. Also, there are always nutjobs in the wings who will independently act on violent rhetoric if you just keep pumping it. You don’t even have to plan or direct the actual violence, it’ll just happen organically.
So yeah, based on the results of this, I think any reasonable person would conclude violence and threats of violence are a simple and effective way to achieve political goals in Denmark.
I don’t care how they feel, I just care how useful it is to them. They can use some things more than others. Burning their favorite things is something they can use for sure.
Making all their women want to wear bikinis and their teenagers want to watch movies and play video games is harder for them to make use of. And probably more effective in the long run. Soft power, basically.
Theocracy and fascism are not mutually exclusive. Fascism means you’re hyper-patriotic, theocracy means you’re getting your rules from some ancient book. You can be both at the same time.
And I disagree, I doubt the problem would go away if we just Thanos-blinked Islam from existence. Culture goes a lot deeper than mere religion.
Oh I see the problem, you got the definition of theocracy wrong. A theocracy is a form of government where the head of state is a priest, like Iran. Iran is a theocracy not because it’s Islamist but because its head of state is an ayatollah.
Islamists don’t have to be priests to rule.
And when did I bring the “make Islam disappear” up?
Islamism has taken over Muslim countries, islamists feel threatened over anything that might challenge them, something challenges them, they cry about it, Denmark bows to them
extremely aggressive stance against anything that may offend them.
It’s a method of control.
Cults and totalitarian leaders rely on creating an “us vs them” mentality where they paint the outside world as evil people who “hate” the cult members and want to harm them. So they will stay in the cult.
A bunch of westerners desecrating their region’s sacred texts is exactly what Islamicist leaders like to see because it visually corroborates the worldview they are trying to instill in their people.
Nah, Islamism (not Islam) promotes an extremely aggressive stance against anything that may offend them. And guess what? Islamism is thriving in Muslim countries
This. The very essence of our free, liberal western democracies is threatened when we bow to religious demands. That’s completely misguided tolerance and a defeatist attitude towards extremism.
If a religion is not compatible with an open and pluralist society then it’s not the society that has to change, it’s the religious dipshits who have to cope with it or honestly go and fuck themselves somewhere else.
Can you elaborate on this distinction?
Islamism is a political movement, Islam is a religion
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism
Ah, got it. Yeah, theocracies suck. I think undermining them without infuriating them would be a more intelligent strategy though.
I mean, if we step back and observe the situation, we can see the best strategy is to threaten violence.
Why? Because one side wanted to impose their sensibilities on the other, threatened them with violent retribution, and then got what they wanted. It WORKS.
And now that it is a proven strategy, there is no reason to bother exploring other alternatives. Threatening violence is EASY. It’s the lowest and simplest rhetoric available. Also, there are always nutjobs in the wings who will independently act on violent rhetoric if you just keep pumping it. You don’t even have to plan or direct the actual violence, it’ll just happen organically.
So yeah, based on the results of this, I think any reasonable person would conclude violence and threats of violence are a simple and effective way to achieve political goals in Denmark.
There la a Southpark episode coming To this exact conclusion. Violence works. It’s a sad truth
Twas an episode explaining how Muhamed got the power to not be made fun of
Reasonable, and extremely simple person, maybe. I see what you’re saying though. Similar to the “don’t negotiate with terrorists” thing.
Good luck. Undermining their authority infuriates them all by itself.
I don’t care how they feel, I just care how useful it is to them. They can use some things more than others. Burning their favorite things is something they can use for sure.
Making all their women want to wear bikinis and their teenagers want to watch movies and play video games is harder for them to make use of. And probably more effective in the long run. Soft power, basically.
That’s like making a fire that doesn’t burn. And no, it’s closer to fascism than to a theocracy
Theocracy and fascism are not mutually exclusive. Fascism means you’re hyper-patriotic, theocracy means you’re getting your rules from some ancient book. You can be both at the same time.
And I disagree, I doubt the problem would go away if we just Thanos-blinked Islam from existence. Culture goes a lot deeper than mere religion.
Oh I see the problem, you got the definition of theocracy wrong. A theocracy is a form of government where the head of state is a priest, like Iran. Iran is a theocracy not because it’s Islamist but because its head of state is an ayatollah.
Islamists don’t have to be priests to rule.
And when did I bring the “make Islam disappear” up?
I was moving back to my original thesis, which is that offending them doesn’t accomplish much. I don’t perceive Islam itself to be the problem.
I admit I don’t fully understand what you’re specifically trying to say though.
Islamism has taken over Muslim countries, islamists feel threatened over anything that might challenge them, something challenges them, they cry about it, Denmark bows to them
It’s a method of control.
Cults and totalitarian leaders rely on creating an “us vs them” mentality where they paint the outside world as evil people who “hate” the cult members and want to harm them. So they will stay in the cult.
A bunch of westerners desecrating their region’s sacred texts is exactly what Islamicist leaders like to see because it visually corroborates the worldview they are trying to instill in their people.