Pakistan's PM Asks Facebook To Ban Islamophobic Content (reuters.com) 211
Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan called on Facebook to ban Islamophobic content on its platform, warning of a spike in radicalization amongst Muslims, hours after he hit out at the French president for "attacking Islam." Reuters reports: Pakistan summoned the French ambassador in Islamabad as anger spread on Monday over President Emmanuel Macron's reaction to the murder last week of a French teacher by an Islamist. Khan, in an open letter posted on Twitter on Sunday, said "growing Islamophobia" was encouraging extremism and violence worldwide, especially through social media platforms such as Facebook. "I would ask you to place a similar ban on Islamophobia and hate against Islam for Facebook that you have put in place for the Holocaust," Khan said.
"One cannot send a message that while hate messages against some are unacceptable, these are acceptable against others," Khan said, adding such a stance was "reflective of prejudice and bias that will encourage further radicalization." In response, a Facebook spokeswoman told Reuters the company opposed all forms of hate and did not allow attacks based on race, ethnicity, national origin or religion. "We'll remove this hate speech as soon as we become aware of it," the spokeswoman said in a statement, adding that Facebook had "more work to do."
"One cannot send a message that while hate messages against some are unacceptable, these are acceptable against others," Khan said, adding such a stance was "reflective of prejudice and bias that will encourage further radicalization." In response, a Facebook spokeswoman told Reuters the company opposed all forms of hate and did not allow attacks based on race, ethnicity, national origin or religion. "We'll remove this hate speech as soon as we become aware of it," the spokeswoman said in a statement, adding that Facebook had "more work to do."
Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
That is correct. In Pakistan, blashpemy against the One True Religion is punishable according to its laws.
By death.
Which makes the person who beheaded the teacher completely in line with Pakistani mainstream views and teacher who was beheaded the criminal. Vigilante attacks that kill purported blasphemers are common in Pakistan.
It's also in the legal code in Pakistan:
Crime: Use of derogatory remarks, spoken, written, directly or indirectly, etc. defiles the name of Muhammad or other Prophet(s)
Punishment: Mandatory Death and fine. Trial must take place in a Court of Session with a Muslim judge presiding.
It's why that Christian woman that got refugee status in Canada and this year in France recently needed to be effectively saved from Pakistan. She was facing a death sentence for much lesser offence than what French teacher did.
Re: (Score:3)
That is correct. In Pakistan, blashpemy against the One True Religion is punishable according to its laws.
By death.
Which makes the person who beheaded the teacher completely in line with Pakistani mainstream views and teacher who was beheaded the criminal. Vigilante attacks that kill purported blasphemers are common in Pakistan.
Then perhaps the Pakistani PM should learn to understand what he is asking for, because this is NOT the same as the ban on holocaust denial bullshit.
Unfortunately, THIS, is factual and accurate, and the world probably should know about this law, so we can then learn to destroy the actual "extremist" views on our planet. This is also the reason the Holocaust is NOT denied, even in Germany, but remembered as the atrocity it was, and will always be taught in hopes that we humans will NEVER be THAT fucking ign
Re:Of course (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the ones without understanding are people like you, who do not understand Islam. At all.
Islam as the name itself states is a religion of submission. In it, there are only two possible cultures. The House of Islam, and the house of war. In that Muslims have a holy duty to bring war and conquer the latter, turning it into a peaceful House of Islam. It's why it's completely factually correct to state that Islam is a religion of peace. It's the details of that peace that are horrifying to Western people like us.
And so, your opinion as an opinion of an unbeliever is utterly irrelevant. You have a duty to submit. Should you fail to do so, it is a duty of every Muslim to do whatever it is in their power to force you to submit. The guy in France simply did exactly as Islam told him to act. And that is why his actions enjoy significant support among Muslims worldwide. Erdogan had to literally be forced into mouthing the "I condemn" after days of diplomatic arm twisting. Tunisia now has some unrest because coastal elites who are still overrepresented in the country's ruling structures who don't really subscribe to mainstream Islam as they're significantly Europeanised are furious that one of their MPs posted a message on Facebook (the irony!) of open support for the Muslim that beheaded the teacher. Must of the Arab world is united in screaming that France is evil for beginning to finally act against the internal threat of Sunni Islamism within its borders after the beheading, and boycotts of French goods are beginning to materialize. I can go on for a while to continue with this point. Needless to say, there are conservatively speaking hundreds of millions of people who support the actions of the Muslim who beheaded the French teacher on their merits. The only question is if this number is in low or high hundreds of millions.
The point is that to many, likely majority of Muslims, beheading wasn't an atrocity. It was a necessary retribution FOR an atrocity of blasphemy against The Prophet. They fundamentally disagree with people like us on the very basic concepts, such as which action in that event is an atrocity and what is a completely justified and righteous act. To use your Holocaust metaphor, in Muslim world today many if not most view this beheading in the same way we would view the Mossad's campaign to hunt down and kill key architects of the Holocaust. Perhaps an extreme retribution, but ultimately a righteous one.
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that to many, likely majority of Muslims, beheading wasn't an atrocity. It was a necessary retribution FOR an atrocity of blasphemy against The Prophet. They fundamentally disagree with people like us on the very basic concepts, such as which action in that event is an atrocity and what is a completely justified and righteous act.
And that, in a nutshell, is why we need to step away from any and all tolerance and understanding and compromise with such people.
A single unclear and unproven murder ATTEMPT at two Russians was enough for economic sanctions against Russia. Despite that the russian government being behind it is doubtful at best. If we're so fast with sanctions, then where are the sanctions against the muslim countries who openly support terrorism against our citizens?
We're afraid that we need their oil? Please. They need us
Re: (Score:2)
It is the not oil. An Islamic multi-tribe conglomeration fighting non-Christians such as Hindus or communists or Buddhists on another continent is literally a wet-dream for your military industrial complex.
This is why some fucking asshole gets his head cut off and its a tragedy worthy of internation outrage but millions dying are just "savages fighting each-other".
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the ones without understanding are people like you, who do not understand Islam. At all....The point is that to many, likely majority of Muslims, beheading wasn't an atrocity. It was a necessary retribution FOR an atrocity of blasphemy against The Prophet. They fundamentally disagree with people like us on the very basic concepts, such as which action in that event is an atrocity and what is a completely justified and righteous act. To use your Holocaust metaphor, in Muslim world today many if not most view this beheading in the same way we would view the Mossad's campaign to hunt down and kill key architects of the Holocaust. Perhaps an extreme retribution, but ultimately a righteous one.
Thank you for the detailed response, but I'm afraid it is you who has failed to see THE point. Pakistans PM would like content that speaks against The Prophet removed. That is censorship by definition. Facebook was removing content related to the Holocaust that was false. That is not necessarily censorship, that is ensuring that history is accurate, which is exactly why I stated that the PM does not necessarily have a case here in this request. You have taken the time here to explain exactly how a beli
Re: (Score:2)
It is genuinely telling how badly anglosphere has polarised in that I get an apology from you for "offending my beliefs" after simply outlining the reason why Muslims act the way they do in this case.
For many reasonable people, it has become literally impossible to imagine that someone can provide a detailed explanation of someone's views without holding those views themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Even Hezbollah and Hamas condemn beheading. In fact the only Muslim country that still does it is Saudi Arabia, all the others have switched to other methods of execution or stopped executing people entirely.
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbn... [nbcnews.com]
The majority of Muslims don't think that Sharia law should apply to non-Muslims, so obviously murdering them for violating it is also unacceptable.
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/... [pewforum.org]
Of course looking at the results of that survey there are some very disturbing results, esp
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me, how much strong-arming did it take to do that? Erdogan had to be beaten for days with near universal demands from European nations to condemn the act before he was forced to mouth the "I condemn". Followed by even more vitriol about the evils of French system, and French teacher who committed the ultimate crime.
He dared to insult the prophet.
Which is why both French education minister and German mainstream left are starting to denounce people like yourself. What French education minister calls "i
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that to many, likely majority of Muslims, beheading wasn't an atrocity. It was a necessary retribution FOR an atrocity of blasphemy against The Prophet.
You can believe all that guff if you want to, but I respectfully disagree. Since when is murder acceptable? Oh that's right, when it is Holy War. Jesus wept, and with good reason.
I was going to post this as Anonymous Coward, for fear of being beheaded by some deluded zealot. But I think it best not to live in fear. Look, I even marked the spot on my neck with a marker pen.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it amusing that both resident Islamists and resident knee-jerk Western atheists are both equally triggered by stating a factual truth about Islam. Both appear to have lost empathy for the other.
And I don't mean empathy as in "sympathy". I mean actual empathy. Ability to get a sense of what other person thinks and feels even when it's an utter anathema to your own belief structure.
Re: (Score:2)
Islam is a murderous, oppressive religion.
Islam as the name itself states is a religion of submission.
And, if people don't submit to it, they are oppressed and eventually murdered.
It was a necessary retribution FOR an atrocity of blasphemy against The Prophet.
So, Christians and Jews should kill Vuslims for blasphemy against "the son of God" and "God" respectively. Next time Muslims want to cry about being oppressed, they should remember that, according to the majority religion in other countries, they should be killed and their mosques burned.
I know you think you are defending your religion but you are just showing how it is a hate-filled reli
Re: (Score:2)
I use a "if both extremes find your views to be awful, you're probably in a good position" as a general benchmark. And now, both extremes have denounced me.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you miss the whole part about requiring them to pay an extremely burdensome tax? And what happens if they can't or won't?
Re:Of course (Score:4, Informative)
>Islam recognizes the difference between Muslim and non-Muslim states.
Wrong on the first point, and you are re-iterating my second one. There is only one Muslim state - the Islamic State. The problem is that when Kemal took over Ottoman Empire and instituted French-style "freedom from religion" in newly born Turkish nation, it was the first time in history of Islam that unbroken line of succession for Caliph's position was broken. Hence the theological disagreements today on who is the legitimate successor for the post of Caliph of the Islamic State.
As for the latter part, it is correct that recognition between Muslim state, the House of Islam and states of the unbelievers, the House of War exists in Islam. That is what I said above.
>And it recognizes the rights of non-Muslims, Dhimmi [wikipedia.org], living within Muslim states.
In the same way that Roman Empire recognised the rights of slaves. Dhimmis are brutally subjugated by law, clear cut second class citizens who are required to submit to Muslims in everyday life. They can be robbed and their women can be raped with de-facto impunity, they have little means to be able to use courts of law against muslims, and they are required to deliver a special tax to local imam by crawling on their knees with their head down, holding the tax in their hands above their heads in an extremely uncomfortable and humiliating position.
And as long as you submit like this, AND you're a member of religion of "people of the book" those with Abrahamic tradition, you're allowed to exist in Islamic state. If you are a polytheist or atheist, you have no right to exist as a dhimmi. Punishment for both of these transgressions is death.
Re: (Score:2)
I said nothing but the truth so far, and hate is what Islamists feel toward people like me.
You on the other hand did exactly what you accuse me of. Lie and regurgitate hateful slander.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you realise that the only people who make the claim that Quran must be read in Arabic for text to be applicable is only made by Islamists? Which you just outed yourself as?
Because those of us not blinded by religious fervour don't care about the original language, or even reading it in the original order rather than in chronological one, because we do not have Islamic religious convictions and therefore do not have to entertain any of the nonsensical claims of Islam as true.
And no, you don't get to behea
Re:Of course (Score:5, Funny)
You must be new here. Have you *seen* Slashdot's Unicode support?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Everything I know about Islam I learned from 9/11, Charlie Hedbo, Al Qaeda, Taliban, Daesh, the recent beheading in France, and a photograph of a street filled to the brim with women speaking out against hijabs. I have no desire to learn more about your facist, racist, misogynistic alt-right hate group.
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go, learn from an unbiased Christian Professor of religious studies and philosophy [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry but did you miss the part where I said "I have no desire to learn more about your facist, racist, misogynistic alt-right hate group."?
Re: (Score:3)
Do you realise that the only people who make the claim that Quran must be read in Arabic for text to be applicable is only made by Islamists? Which you just outed yourself as?
Because those of us not blinded by religious fervour don't care about the original language, or even reading it in the original order rather than in chronological one, because we do not have Islamic religious convictions and therefore do not have to entertain any of the nonsensical claims of Islam as true.
And no, you don't get to behead me for stating this.
Your whole thread here broad brushes a diverse faith that something like a quarter of the world's population believe in, and you don't get to tell other people how they interpret their religion, what it means to them, or their personal relationship with their faith. That is shameful, and wrong.
I suggest you ask your own religious leaders how to get along with people of different faith because they can teach you a thing or two. Or if you're an atheist, stop making us look bad please.
You are displaying the
Re: (Score:3)
I see you're not very familiar with my views on that topic. I'm on record stating that while it's obviously condemnable by modern Western morals as a genocide, West and East both have shown no ability to integrate Muslims. To quote Sri Lankan buddhist leader, "we can live in peace with all religions of the world but Islam, because Muslims refuse to live in peace with us".
And that I think that Chinese efforts are going to be interesting to observe from point of view of one genocidal culture meeting another,
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shame that that part is abrogated, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
You just lied again.
I see a pattern of lies in order to spread hate of a section of society - similar to what enabled the holocaust of the Jews.
I feel sorry for you.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Remind me, what does Islam command to do to Jews? The orders of The Prophet after he arrived in Medina and abrogated all those peaceful texts?
The pattern of hate you're seeing is there. In Islam. You're projecting your own religious convictions on others, a common problem for the faithful. A cycle of unending hate of all unbelievers is enshrined in Islamic dogma. It's why even the Buddhists, the people who literally value life above all else now openly talk that there is indeed one religion they cannot coex
Re: (Score:3)
Don't waste your breath, he'll just take his anger out on the nine year old wife he bought.
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go - the treaty of Medina [blogspot.com] as created by the Prophet and the Muslims and non-Muslims together:
"Non-Muslims shall be considered a community along with the Muslims. They shall be guaranteed the right of religious freedom, along with the Muslims."
"Non-Muslim members have equal political and cultural rights as Muslims. They will have autonomy and freedom of religion."
"If attacked by a third-party (outside Medina), all citizens of Medina shall come to the assistance of each other"
"Every party of the trea
Re: (Score:2)
You appear to think you're talking to what French education minister referred to as "islamo-leftist". Someone utterly ignorant of islamic theology. An absurd assumption considering how this discussion went for you so far, with every deflection being either "you're hateful for saying genocide of unbelievers is bad" or "let me tell you about parts of the faith that have been abrogated by The Prophet".
This is in the latter category. You desperately insist that abrogated scripture is more relevant than one that
Re: (Score:2)
Nine year old wives are severely frowned upon in most of the Islamic world today, where not directly outlawed by different interpretation of relevant Hadiths.
Re: (Score:2)
Your faith demands killing of atheists and polytheists. It treats them as demon-possessed people to be purged. And it demands total genocide of Jews for Final Judgement to begin.
And yet, you're here to complain about hate of Jews and Holocaust. The irony is real. You have the balls, I'll give you that. Just like the guy who beheaded the teacher. Balls combined with blind islamist views make for a murderous combination.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what the Prophet Muhammad stated on his last sermon [wordpress.com] before passing away...
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve; an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have superiority over an Arab; also, a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have superiority over a white - except by piety and good action."
"Return the goods entrusted to you to their rightful owners. Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. Remember that you will indeed meet your Lord, and that He will indeed
Re: (Score:2)
"All mankind is from Adam and Eve; an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab, nor does a non-Arab have superiority over an Arab; also, a white has no superiority over a black, nor does a black have superiority over a white - except by piety and good action."
Correct. To claim that Islam is inherently racist is false. Of course, I never maid this claim. You're debunking something that was never claimed, because you know you cannot even pretend to debunk the actual claim.
The claim I'm making is that it's agai
Re: (Score:2)
You have a duty to submit. Should you fail to do so, it is a duty of every Muslim to do whatever it is in their power to force you to submit. The guy in France simply did exactly as Islam told him to act.
Needless to say, there are conservatively speaking hundreds of millions of people who support the actions of the Muslim who beheaded the French teacher on their merits.
likely majority of Muslims, beheading wasn't an atrocity. It was a necessary retribution
Moderating a post which is clearly spreading hate and lies as "interesting" is a new low for slashdot.
So is you failing to understand that other belief systems and how humans react within them, IS interesting to some. It's called learning. You should try it some time.
From what I can tell, the only statement above that was even questionable was "hundreds of millions". Other than that, it appears the cherry-picked issues you've presented here, are simply stating fact. You either cannot handle facts because of an immature mind, or you have a valid viewpoint that defends your response beyond mere feelings.
"Blasphemy" is very broad (Score:2)
Any comments that the mullahs do not like is called blasphemy, which then gets an empowered minority very excited to defend the true faith. The lack of tolerance and numbers of people bent on violent revenge is quite frightening.
That said, Pakistan elected a liberal woman as Prime Minister not long ago. Before she was killed. It has swung the wrong way since. And the upcoming victory of the Taliban in Afghanistan has a bad influence well beyond their country,
Pakistan is in a dark place, and India is hea
Re: (Score:2)
Okay so you have absolutely no fucking idea what you are talking about.
"Modi's restrictions of free speech" citation please. I do mean citation for what new restrictions have been made on free speech by Modi.
My GOD how big of an idiot one has to be to compare Islamic countries like Pakistan (a failed state) with Indonesia (GDP per capita > India) with "Modi's" India (which decriminalized homosexuality, banned instant-divorce, increased sanitation coverage from 36% to 84% in a country the size of India an
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes the person who beheaded the teacher completely in line with Pakistani mainstream views
I'm not certain that this was the case. Were the pictures derogatory? I'm not sure. I haven't see them. Was there a trial in a court presided over by a Muslim judge? I think not.
The outright ban of depictions of the Prophet applies only to Muslims. And then not to all sects.
Re: (Score:2)
>Were the pictures derogatory? I'm not sure.
If you spent ten seconds asking this question of your favourite search engine, you'd know that ALL depiction of The Prophet are blasphemous in Islam.
>Was there a trial in a court presided over by a Muslim judge? I think not.
Event happened in France, not Pakistan, therefore there was no way to get the guilty party to be judged and executed in Pakistan. Therefore a righteous warrior of Islam carried out swift justice in the land of the unbelievers.
If you bothe
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly, you missed this and countless other examples of non-Muslim people having divine retribution meted against them in the name of The Prophet for such blasphemy
Let's not forget the countless murders of Muslims by other Muslims for blasphemy. Islam is a suicidal religion. If one Muslim meets another Muslim and there is a disagreement on the teachings of their prophet then the prophet tells both of them to kill the other for blasphemy. If one of these two does not believe that such a disagreement merits killing the other then that simply means being killed by the one that does. Their prophet tells them that dying in the process of killing blasphemers is somethin
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine being so threatened by someone criticizing a child-raping pagan you kill them for it. The world would be a better place without Islam.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you view this from the perspective of early iron age, that is the benevolent thing to do. There's no birth control, so that woman is likely going to get pregnant and then be abandoned as a burden propagating the seed of her rapist by her family, that has half a dosen other children to pick up the slack.
Sad fact is, back then this was indeed a humane thing to do, as it guaranteed survival of the mother and child and acted as an excellent deterrent for would be rapists. The problem is that nature of Islam
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What you or I think about it is irrelevant. It's what a billion plus of muslims of the world agree on that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the problem in modern world where she gets to not slowly starve while being shunned by all.
In early Iron Age world, ensuring that she doesn't get to slowly starve was a whole lot more important than vengeance against perpetrator from point of view of survival. One of these scenarios results in death of two viable adults of breeding age in time when less than half of all children reached this age alive. Other results in them surviving and producing viable progeny.
Therefore one of these strategies ass
Re: (Score:2)
You are applying modern morals that come from perspective of respecting life, liberty and pursuit of happiness over basic survival, because basic survival as a problem no longer exists.
It demonstrats an utter lack of empathy, replaced with demonstrative "look how much I care about what modern sensibilities tell us to care about" showmanship. It's not productive.
Re: (Score:2)
>Yours is a good example of spreading hate.
When truth is banned because someone finds it offensive, lies rule. And society built on lies rarely lasts long.
>I'm not sure if Pakistan has death penalty for religious blasphemy,
A single search would have answered this for you. You chose to spend that time slandering me instead.
>Regardless, a person can't take laws into their own hands by killing whoever they want under whatever pretext.
Opinion of an unbeliever is as relevant to a Muslim as opinion of an
Re: (Score:2)
Which makes the person who beheaded the teacher completely in line with Pakistani mainstream views and teacher who was beheaded the criminal.
Yours is a good example of spreading hate.
I'm not sure if Pakistan has death penalty for religious blasphemy, but I remember when the death penalty applied in the US for spreading state secrets - treason.
Regardless, a person can't take laws into their own hands by killing whoever they want under whatever pretext.
Pakistan does have the death penalty for blasphemy [bbc.co.uk]. Even suggesting changes to the blasphemy laws is considered blasphemous, so the one suggesting the change should be killed [bbc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My own belief about Muslim rage is that it is disingenuous. It is disingenuous in the sense that they believe they will be rewarded in Heaven for rage against some perceived insult here on Earth. It is merely a divine transaction: I murder or damage the infidel now, Allah rewards me later. The rage is merely window dressing to convince themselves they are doing the right thing...and it helps block out the screams of their victims.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A group of people who have no relation to the thing depict the thing in a way where the same message could have been conveyed without directly depicting the thing.
What do you mean by no relation?
The Danish Mohammed cartoons were created because it had come to light that a number of non-muslim artists and educators in Denmark were self-censoring because of fear of violence from muslims. One was assaulted by a group of muslims for reading out loud from the Quran to non-muslims as a part of a university education (cross-cultural studies I believe). And an author making a book for teaching about islam in school (as a part of learning about various religions) was not able
The good old "phobic" (Score:5, Insightful)
The ultimate shotgun accusation that can be safely applied to everyone who disagrees with you while being irrefutable due to lack of substance. To be more specific, it contains three irrefutable accusations: You're a hater, you're a pussy, you're insane. Three irrefutable accusations for the price of one, that's a bargain.
Why do they even bother creating different suffixes for it? It always comes down to the same thing anyways.
Re:The good old "phobic" (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, French Education Minister just publicly denounced "islamo-leftism". For the fact that postmodenism and critique of capitalism that permeates US mainstream today having been directly copied from the French elite, French elite and French people absolutely despise the US variant that is based in identity politics.
Essentially, one shouldn't confuse the anglosphere version of mainstream with French one. They are very different beasts with mutually exclusive foundations. In US, you have a freedom OF religion. In France, you have a freedom FROM religion. Which is why when something like this happens, French reject it in very visible ways. And while some in educational elite will try to copy the regressive nonsense from Americanised anglosphere mainstream, people and the rest of the elite generally reject them.
And at this point, it's starting to look like this rejection is no longer "behind the closed doors" kind, but something that is being thrown directly in the faces of the "but islamophobia" crowd by the people who actually have a long background in education and actually come from the very system that bore the concept of "rejecting islamism after it terrorises you is islamophobic, rather than a completely rational fear of ideology that seeks to do this to all unbelievers who dare to stand against them".
Re: (Score:2)
In US, you have a freedom OF religion. In France, you have a freedom FROM religion.
Why shouldn't a free country have both?
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, people may be surprised to learn that France does not allow religious symbols in schools (even personal ones like a Christian cross necklace or Muslim headscarf) and does not allow the full face veil in public.
In France religion is a personal thing that you can practice in your own home or place of worship, but in public spaces it's either illegal or highly discouraged. You might call it aggressively secular.
Having said that I think you are wrong about "rejecting islamism after it terrorises you is
Re: (Score:2)
>The point was that Islamic terrorism isn't representative of the majority of Muslims.
You are on what French education minister just denounced as "islamo-leftist" and what even Der Spiegel in Germany decried as utterly damning feature of the certain parts of German Left. In that you continue to state the long debunked lies, pretend that "Christianity is ideologically just as bad as Islam" and other factual nonsense. Majority of Muslims do subscribe to belief that things like depicting The Prophet is to b
Re: (Score:3)
This data will blow you mind: https://www.pewresearch.org/20... [pewresearch.org]
French Muslims are among the more progressive ones in Europe. Positive opinions of non-Muslims, including Jews, and the highest level of "national citizen first" (before their Muslim identity) in any of the countries surveyed. They are also more likely to want to adopt French culture and lifestyle.
Re: (Score:3)
"No-go zones" are a long debunked conspiracy theory that somehow persists. There are certainly none in France.
https://bridge.georgetown.edu/... [georgetown.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering when the first apologist will show up. The shitstorm and shitflinging that came from anglosphere twitter nutjob left after this remark to try to pretend that this remark was aimed at political opposition rather than the establishment left starting the standard "but the islamophobia" apologia was hilarious to watch. As were desperate attempts to pretend that French democracy isn't really democratic because it does things differently from anglosphere, allowing for more than two mainstream part
Re: (Score:2)
Then you are simply an idiot who fails to comprehend that democratic legitimacy depends on people of the nation, rather than opinion of foreigners.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite well so far it seems. He's stable in power in spite of massive protest movement against the state itself that's being ongoing throughout his tenure.
Why do you ask?
Re: (Score:2)
Orwell thought Newspeak would be created by the government, but it's turned out to be more of a grass-roots effort.
By complaining about words used to describe things in the hope that people stop using them you are making it difficult to discuss and even think about those issues.
Re: (Score:2)
and, THERE it is! (Score:3, Insightful)
For all you politically correct, pro-speech-code, snowflakes, THIS is where you end up when you go down the path of arbitrary censorship to satisfy various pressure groups. More and more groups will show up to your little muzzle-the-public party and before you know it you no longer can have consistent rules and you need to employ a massive number of people to do the snooping/analyzing/censoring. With just another step or two down this path, Facebook will be the speechcode enforcers for radical Islamic terrorist groups, which will become VERY inconvenient if they get stripped of their section230 protections.
When the game is BigBrotherism, the double-plus good way to win is: not to play.
Just because people think you're an asshole... (Score:4)
For all you politically correct, pro-speech-code, snowflakes, THIS is where you end up when you go down the path of arbitrary censorship to satisfy various pressure groups.
When the game is BigBrotherism, the double-plus good way to win is: not to play.
I'll bet these "politically correct" people you're talking about just called you out for being an asshole. It's OK, buddy, I don't judge you for being an asshole. We all have our moments. However, when I say something that offends someone, I don't call them "politically correct." I just realize that there's a time and a place for all discussions and maybe they don't want to hear my opinions on the differences between men and women or generalizations about some group. Conversations are relative. Nothing is objective. What you can shout at a ball game, would make you a huge asshole if you shouted at a funeral. What makes you truthful and interesting in one crowd, makes you a total asshole in another.
I've never heard the word "politically correct" muttered/written by anyone who wasn't acting like a total asshole. Find your audience, don't complain that people don't want to hear what you have to say
In your mind and maybe that of your friends, what you said is OK. However, in that situation, your audience didn't want to hear it. Just accept it. Don't complain about it. Nothing is more obnoxious than someone acting like a spoiled child because they offended someone and didn't realize the person they're talking to doesn't want to hear their bullshit.
Also for the 100,000th time, this has nothing to do with Big Brother. Read the fucking book. It was about an inescapable GOVERNMENT oppression. Facebook is quite escapable. All we have here is an asshole politician making a dumb rhetorical argument against Facebook because it's what his audience wants to hear. Facebook is a private company and really has the right to police it however they want. So yeah, a total asshole PM wants to build a false equivalency between one ideology, Radical Islam, which has a long long long history of terrorism and murder with the flimsiest of justification and Islamophobia, which I am sure has killed people, but NOWHERE in the same numbers. It's a stupid request, but makes him look good. It's no different than the GOP claiming algorithms have a liberal bias...both know it's not true, but it's something to throw to their dumbest supporters to say they're making a difference.
People need to stop playing the stupid culture wars. Don't smite my enemies...make my life better. Ensure people in my community have jobs, my roads are paved, my kids get a great education. Cut the culture war bullshit. It's just a distraction from things that matter from leaders who have failed their people. The only thing I want to hear from a leader is how they're going to make my life better, not how they're going to fight some idiotic culture war on my behalf. This PM must have failed his people really badly to be stooping to this level. If his economy was growing and handling the pandemic well and everyone's life was getting better, he'd not have to fight stupid culture wars with some insipid tech company in California.
Re: (Score:2)
Not doing this is how you end up with global megacorporations more power than governments. Do you want to be ruled by corporate overlords?
Pakistan has every right to make laws and rules for companies operating within its borders. Obviously we think those rules are bad, but it's their right to make that mistake. Otherwise there is no way to protect ourselves from rampant corporatism because there will always be a more liberal jurisdiction that charges less tax or allows something we don't, and they will alwa
Just one thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Blasphemy is not hate speech.
Declarations of Apostasy are not hate speech.
And laws that condemn someone to death for freedom of thought is perhaps the purest form of hate speech existing today.
Re: (Score:2)
Criticizing religion is not hate speech.
Blasphemy is not hate speech.
Declarations of Apostasy are not hate speech.
And laws that condemn someone to death for freedom of thought is perhaps the purest form of hate speech existing today.
The level of risk you subject yourself to is heavily dependent upon where you live and the beliefs of those around you.
Of course, with the unmitigated influx of Islamic refugees into traditionally non-Islamic countries, the realm of free speech ais beginning to blur a bit by those who can't handle criticism of their religion very well.
Re: (Score:2)
Saying people should have freedom of association and the right to decide to discriminate against people of a given religion and exclude them from their society is hate speech though.
Stop the hate, open your borders until they can outvote you.
Re: Just one thing... (Score:2)
You're dodging the issue. The PM's example was Facebook's treatment of the Holocaust.
Is denying the Holocaust hate speech? No.
I feel Facebook is doing good by filtering Holocaust denial crap, so maybe the PM is on to something.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, let's play the "draw the line" game. I'm going to start by drawing a line at vigilante extra-judicial beheadings of people who insult your religion (whether you're Muslim or not, in fact). If you cross that line, I assert that you are wrong. We can adjust exactly where the line fall
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a pragmatist; I look for solutions. I don't agree with much of Islamic cultural traditions at all. But don't assume you can roll in Facebook or other facets of globalization, expect them to accept ways that are foreign to them and
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with you. I can see that a person's religious beliefs of whatever persuasion could necessitate them doing something I would find abhorrent. And that my abhorrence would just be more irritating to them, because they can see so clearly why the thing was necessary and I cannot.
Re: (Score:2)
It is if you're BarbaraHudson.
Simple, ban all mobile phones and pc's (Score:2)
Why bother with inventions from the new world if you are not enlightened enough to deal with them?
My religion is so awesome that I can deal with what other people might think.
The Flying Spagetthi Monster does see Facebook as a mere test for real Pastafarians to survive in this flawed and misinformed world.
Khan could also tell his people to stop murdering (Score:5, Interesting)
Neat. So, what are we supposed to do, keep real quiet while Daddy Islam is home so we don't wake him up? Maybe he won't beat us so bad if we give him the belt? Maybe he only hurts us because he loves us so much, he wants to show us just what his philosophy of peace and enlightenment is all about.
Maybe when radical Muslims stop chopping off schoolteachers' heads, we can have a talk about who is encouraging extremism and violence. When one party to the situation is behaving as savage animals, I don't see that being nicer to them on Facebook is going to solve the problem. They need to join the 21st century, where you don't get to murder people because your feefees got hurt by someone who made a rude drawing. Their shitty culture of violence is not everyone else's fault.
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting how you subtly club all Muslims into radicals.
Is it free speech to insult homosexuals?
Is it free speech to insult Jews?
We don't do this in our daily life offline, so why is it allowed online (and publicised to everyone everywhere)?
Re: (Score:3)
I certainly don't claim all Muslims are radicals. I acknowledge that there's a billion and a half of them and we don't see news stories like "Moderate Muslim goes about his day unremarkably", we get news stories when a radical does violence and claims it's on behalf of his religion. I don't know what the solution is, but I suggest it's not that we all tiptoe around the entire population of Islam in case one of them might go off and start laying about himself with a machete.
And by the way, I will certainly c
Re: (Score:3)
"Maybe when radical Muslims stop chopping off schoolteachers' heads, we can have a talk about who is encouraging extremism and violence"
Too much violence you're right. Radical Muslims, radical Americans, radical Indians, radical French, radical Israelis, radical ...
and so on.
Too many are encouraging violence.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe when radical Muslims stop chopping off schoolteachers' heads, we can have a talk about who is encouraging extremism and violence.
And when Americans stop drone-striking weddings.
Though I'll grant that one of the (few) things Trump has done right is to back off on that sort of thing. More out of disinterest than well-reasoned policy and moral fiber, but I'll take it.
Facebook should censor nothing (Score:2)
Let it be the responsibility of state censors (China, Pakistan, ..) to block content. American companies should stop censoring EVERYONE's content on the basis of what offends SOME powerful people or states. If not, these so-called "platforms" ought to be penalized financially by the US, with the proceeds going to programs domestic and abroad supporting freedom of speech.
From Cricketer to State Murderer (Score:2)
Imran Khan was the head of the Pakistan cricket team. He was educated at Oxford. I'm sure he understands well the vacuousness of his request, but he's doing it anyway to please the violent extremists at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's just a prelude to blocking Facebook. Maybe they would prefer that a Pakistani social network replace it, kinda like how the US tries to ban stuff it can't compete with on dubious national security grounds.
Speaking of which the WeChat ban was just rejected again, judge said the government had failed to show any plausible national security issue.
Okay. Ban all Islamic content entirely, then. (Score:4, Interesting)
yes, but... (Score:2)
On the other hand, his suggestion that Islam-hating on Facebook is contributing to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic radicalism is laughable. That started centuries ago, right after the Islamic golden age. Stop blaming others and take a long look in the mirror. Yes, Britain's empire did it's share of dama
Is this really the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you add up all the murders Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims have committed on each other, a rational person would probably conclude that Western Islamophobia is the least of Islam's problems.
Don't fear us. Or else! (Score:3)
I can post Trumpophobic and Christianophobic content all days and nothing bad will happen to me. If I post anything that passes for homophobic these days, like "sexual preferences", I will lose my job. If post Islamophobic stuff in identifiable way, someone might come and murder me. Facebook should ask Mr Khan why is that we have to worry about residents of his country radicalizing and not about residents of India. Ironically the only way to prove that I am being unreasonable and nasty with my phobias is by showing I can express them without retaliation.
Fuck Them (Score:2)
Sorry, fucktard, no. We don't take "oh, we are so sensitive, please protect us from nasty words" requests from people who cut off heads.
On the contrary, I say we should go and offend these people as much as possible, so they can finally get a grip. If a picture of your prophet is offensive to your god, that's a fucking weak god, isn't it? Shouldn't the creator of the universe have a thicker skin?
This is such a classic case of victim blaming. We've seen it in so many cases. Some unbelievable assholes go and
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, I say we should go and offend these people as much as possible, so they can finally get a grip.
This appears to be very much a part of French culture. See Charlie Hebdo. Pretty silly stuff really, but some French humour is like that. They take the piss out of the Pope, but I did not notice any Catholics beheading people because of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me started on them. The reason I'm not posting angry rants on those morons is that it's thankfully become rare that they murder people in the name of religion. Humanism has managed to tame those two offshots of the same tree. It was a long and hard fight with many losses, but we've at last managed to bring them to behave like halfway civilized people. There's still quite a bit of frothing at the mouth, childlike bullshit and the occasional "let's kill that abortion doctor for doing his job because
Flying horses don't exist, Ali. (Score:2)
Racist !
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Judeo/Christian/Muslim religions are basically peaceful, and they come from the same heritage. But, there are certainly evil people who do bad stuff, saying their strict/limited interpretation of their religion allows/demands it. Most religions, at their core, boil down to the Golden Rule.
Militant Muslims are no different than Christian Crusaders ("if it doesn't burn, it's a witch!"). At least Muslims don't cannibalize their deity in worship. L
Re: (Score:2)
I can't get behind any god who needs men to interpret its intent. If a god needs priests/imams/rabbis or other shamans to interpret its intent and tell people what they should believe, that's a god without any power, and very certainly not one to be worshiped.
In any field of study there will be subject matter experts. If I have a question about law then I will seek out a lawyer. If I have a question about money then I will seek out an accountant. This means that people with questions on religion will seek out a priest, minister, imam, or whatever.
It's going to be quite rare for someone to become a subject matter expert through self study and internal reflection. Most people will become subject matter experts, such as lawyers and accountants, through an educa
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, they have very weak gods. They need men to write their books and men to interpret them. That's nowhere close to omnipotent.
Re: (Score:2)
That is definitely not the case. Have you ever heard of the phrase "to go old testament on something"?
The main difference is that islam never had the enlightement and the slow secularisation of society that followed. Something like that has been tried in the 1970s but the attack by islamic terrorists in Saudi Arabia in 1979, the CIA support for islamic terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan the same year and the revolutuon in Iran also the same year put
Re: (Score:2)
"Religion of peace"... I don't think anyone believes that one, no matter how much time they've spent in the Zuckergarten.
Where's the outrage from the Muslim community? Like, are they out there en masse protesting this stuff, or are they just hoping people will kinda overlook it?