• @blahsay
    link
    English
    621 year ago

    Tolerance is not a moral requirement but a social contract.

    By social contract I mean it’s an agreement that I will tolerate you as long as you tolerate me.

    Islamic groups literally want some sections of western society dead (queer community etc) and other sections subjugated (women). They violate the contract and we shouldn’t be accepting of that.

    tldr: We shouldn’t pander to people who think a book burning means someone should die.

    • MrScottyTay
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      Not all Muslims are like that though. Most are very level headed and tolerant of others and their religions too. If all Muslims were how you described, with how many there are in the world there would be literal chaos every day.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Level headed people shouldn’t be out of their mind because some nutjob burns a book. Pretty sure people who are like you write aren’t keen on getting blasphemy laws back.

        • MrScottyTay
          link
          fedilink
          English
          01 year ago

          You described the fanatical extremists that are not the majority of that religion. I also don’t know what you’re trying to get at with that last part. I just think people are too quick to lump everyone in one bag that doesn’t fully represent them just because it does for a few of them.

          There are absolute heinous people who could be demographically similar to me as well I imagine, I don’t want to be lumped in with them. Just like how a lot of Muslims around the world will think that too.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            8
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Banning the burning or “desecration” of a specific genre of books because it rallies the feelings of highly religious people is pandering to the views of the religious extremists. That is my point.

            People who are level headed about their religion won’t demand that a state forbids to burn a book. And they won’t get worked up by it to the point they think this is something that should be handled on a state level.

            • MrScottyTay
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -21 year ago

              I have more of an issue that the people burning are doing it themselves to try and incite something. I couldn’t care less to be honest that it’s about religious stuff or of a specific religion. It goes both ways, just don’t be pricks towards other people and none of that eye for an eye shit either.

      • Lemminary
        link
        English
        81 year ago

        Sure, but I have received a few messages from Muslims–and only Muslims–threatening to overtake Western civilization so that I’ll be put in my place. I don’t know of any other group that does that.

        • MrScottyTay
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -31 year ago

          Right, but you didn’t receive an email from every Muslim in the entire world. And I could think of a few Christian nutjobs that go crazy, like how a lot are against gay people and send them to camps to stop them from being gay.

          • Lemminary
            link
            English
            61 year ago

            My overall point doesn’t require that every single Muslim do that. If a small fraction of them are making these threats, it hints at an underlying belief system and related attitudes of an agenda against the West.

      • DarkGamer
        link
        fedilink
        61 year ago

        What does the Quran say they are supposed to do to apostates?

      • @blahsay
        link
        English
        2
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Completely agree. I’ve lived in Malaysia and they’re pretty chilled there. Some places though Islam gets pretty full on. Check out Islamabad or Tehran sometime - yikes. Nothing like seeing a march of people chanting, ‘Death to the west!’ and flaying themselves bloody while doing it to realise Islam ramps up.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -9
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Protesting against those who impede on your right to self-determination and your right to trade freely with the rest of the world is completely understandable. Especially when the entity enforcing the sanctions and making threatening statements conversely makes so much noise about “liberal” values - the right to free trade, democracy etc.

          • @blahsay
            link
            English
            61 year ago

            Geeze yeah the Iranians I saw certainly weren’t protesting. They just wanted war and blood. It’s hard to explain the real face of Islam unless you see it first hand - check it out sometime!

            It’s spooky to see how Islam changes Iranians - they’re usually the kindest, most open minded and welcoming people. The Islamists though…wow

            • @Linkerbaan
              link
              English
              -71 year ago

              The west is the party that wants war and blood. The Iranians just want to defend themselves. Your hypocrisy is through the roof.

              You look at Palestine and then say “oh those Hamas guys, they just hate the west for no reason aside from Islam. It has nothing to do with them being oppressed.”

              • @galloog1
                link
                English
                71 year ago

                Western liberals are not shouting death to Iran at every rally nor are they conducting escalatory actions that are not proportional. There is a distinctive difference. Sanctions are ramped up and down in direct response to rhetoric and violent actions by proxies around the middle east. You are apparently blind to these.

                • @Linkerbaan
                  link
                  English
                  -31 year ago

                  The west actively boycots Iran and prevents it from engaging in trade. They have bombed an Iranian general at an airport without being in war.

                  Iran is the party here that unironically is defending itself. The west is the agressor.

                  • @galloog1
                    link
                    English
                    31 year ago

                    An Iranian theocratic general in Iraq that was absolutely in no way involved in the destabilisation and insurgency in Iraq. He was just there for holiday. Wake up. If that wasn’t enough for you then maybe the active supply and support of Russia against Ukraine is. I suppose those Iranian Soldiers that were hit in Ukraine were there for the beaches then?

                    I addressed all of this in my original comment concerning proxies and proportional responses.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -41 year ago

                  There’s no need to shout death to anyone when your policies cause death. Or when your military spending is greater than everyone else’s combined. Or when you have a legacy of causing death en masse, on a whim.

                  • @blahsay
                    link
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    I guess your solution would be for all restrictions on Iran to be lifted? Honestly I’d love that too. They are somewhat counter productive and the poverty they cause in turn causes extremists.

                    The harsh truth though is that if the world stopped looking for a year or two Iran would do exactly what they’ve said they’d do…several nuclear bombs going off in Israel and probably elsewhere.

                    The theocracy there is seriously unhinged - again you should take a look for yourself.

                    (Also I’m not American nor does their military spending eclipse all other countries - and almost every country has a legacy of death so careful pointing fingers)

    • Victor
      link
      English
      -71 year ago

      Bad and basic take.

      • @blahsay
        link
        English
        31 year ago

        You’re welcome to elaborate? I feel I speak not from prejudice but from experience having lived and travelled widely in the Muslim world.

        • Victor
          link
          English
          -51 year ago

          Say you have a bunch of Nazi grizzly bears living outside and around your village.

          They don’t do fuck all to the people of your village. In fact, some are actually coming through the village sometimes, but they don’t hurt anyone. They’re just Nazi fucks. But they enjoy your village and they sometimes fertilize your parks.

          Then someone says, these fucking grizzly bears are Nazis, goddammit, imma burn piles of “Mein Kampf” as a protest!

          So they do, and all the grizzly bears get provoked, enter the village, and start attacking all the people.

          Now, there’s a whole bunch of people on both sides of this theoretical situation who will say this is black and white and in their favor – how dare they burn our holy book! How dare they say we can’t burn whatever we like in our own village!

          But it’s not black and white. It’s gray af. It’s freaking #777.

          If you don’t provoke them, there’s no problem in the village. Sometimes it’s enough knowing you have the right to do something, and too much to actually do it, because actually doing it creates a whole fucking heap of problems to your fellow villager, whereas not doing it would spare them these problems.

          With great power comes great responsibility. Same thing with great freedoms. We have a bunch of freedoms. Let’s not be stupid with them, lest they be taken away.