Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Just like other users will not be shouted down by you, 'K?
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Jan 3rd, 2013 at 12:52:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
have made posts which are borderline Godwin : Katrin attempted to conflate Charlie Hebdo with anti-Muslim hate sites; Colman implied that this is an anti-Muslim debate. Typically these are tactics designed to close down a debate. I will not be shamed into silence because I have nothing to be ashamed of. I will respond to both if they make substantive points.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 03:59:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A large section of this debate, globally*, is anti-muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-darkie. Look at the people involved in it for crap's sake. How many of them would you want to be allied with?  How many of them are truly anti-clerical when the clerics are wearing dog collars? Unless you're very careful indeed you simply end up bolstering forces we really don't want to support. It doesn't seem that Charlie Hebdo was careful enough if it's being used in the way this diary used it. That's what I meant.

Also, Godwin, Godwin, GODWIN!

[* I'm sure that all the French voices involved are organically certified anti-clericists without the slightest whiff of racism or anti-immigrant dog whistling. France is like that, apparently.]

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 05:29:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
is "there are reactionary forces who don't like darkies and don't like Muslims. Therefore, anything which can be construed as critical of Islam should be self-censored by progressives". I can understand that argument, but I can't respect it.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 07:01:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You do not understand the argument if you are conflating the granting of the right for expression and approval. Charlie Hebdo has every right to publish offending bullshit. But what is their point? Why does it feel the need to be critical of Islam, why now, and why in this form? Don't tell me that a picture book designed to be taken as blasphemous is just "anything which can be construed as critical of Islam".

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 04:35:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You find nothing wrong in offending Muslims in order to make a point against some Muslims, but you cry Godwin when I put your revered Charlie Hebdo into the same box as Islamophobian hate sites. Funny that.
by Katrin on Fri Jan 4th, 2013 at 06:56:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No one has attempted to close down a debate, nor to "shame you into silence". Give it a rest.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Sat Jan 5th, 2013 at 12:36:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
One of the many reasons I like blogs is that no one can be shouted down. Bored to death, maybe, by bad argument, but not shouted down.

My intent was to speak of larger sociological issues, chief among them the overdone propensity of "liberals" to be so open-minded that their brains fall out.

At some point, humanity needs to think about its own survival. Instincts run amok in changed ecological/evolutionary niches.

Religion is one of those dangerous instincts. Xenophobia another.

Muslims are not a minority religion, nor do they lack instruments of force. They certainly tend toward extirpation of other religious adherents, more so when challenged. Not a good trend.

Align culture with our nature. Ot else!

by ormondotvos (ormond.otvosnospamgmialcon) on Sat Jan 12th, 2013 at 09:32:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Occasional Series