-
Islamophobia is often used to stifle by groups to stifle genuine criticism about ideas in the Islamic religion. (Not that this is a monobloc no religion is)
Anti Muslim bigotry is a better definition imho. Islam is an ideology and open to debate,like any ideology. But of course motions to publicly condemn anti Muslim.(people) discrimination are good.
-
^ So is antisemitism. All words that describe genuine bigotry can be twisted to apply in inappropriate circumstances to suit political or ideological ends. That's how language works. For example the term "racist" is commonly extended to issues that have nothing to do with race.
In my experience, if an argument (such as lasyrabbit's above) descends quickly into semantic disagreement then it probably wasn't very strong in the first place.
-
What about the bloody fundamentalists the splitters.
-
Language matters. The fact semantic disagreeing exists is because language does matter.
I don't agree using racism for xenophobia either. It muddies the water because we think A but say B.
If the government means anti Muslims hatred then use that. It's especially important i think governments are more accurate to prevent hijacking of laws by pressure groups.
Don't use a term that is already being abuse at the moment to stifle debate. It's a pain that everything has to be defined to the umpteenth extent these days but if we don't we give some people an easy run.
-
It's a pain that everything has to be defined to the umpteenth extent these days but if we don't we give some people an easy run.
On the other hand, having very specific laws creates the possibility of legal loopholes and requires specific laws against every possible variable.
Discrimination/abuse/violence etc is simply that, regardless of what provoked it.
I don't see the need for laws against discrimination/abuse/violence, * specifically based upon someone's race/religion/gender/sexual preference etc*, when the existing, broader laws prohibit these.
That's not to say I don't see the value in a government, or any other body, publicly stating their opposition to particular problems as they come to prominence, which is the case with the Canadian motion.
-
It's almost as if @mashton invoked another mosque thread by referencing it.
-
I actually can't even make it past half way through the 2nd paragraph.
-
Just of the eyes and brain. I'm otherwise fine.
-
I long for an article on badly dressed male politicians .
For example: Boris and the Donald both insist on wearing suits that don't fit them, suits are either blue or grey or blue or grey
-
If true (and I assume it is) I find this shocking:
tldr, climate data is being deleted. Literally lost forever. I'm not sure how this is even possible (how is all this stuff kept in one place to allow for an effective deletion).
According to the article it's happened previously in Canada a couple of years ago, in which case it seems like a dereliction of duty of involved scientists not to have secured backups since then. Even so, it's amazing that knowledge is being wiped out.
-
Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past
-
gitabitan in reply to @jimmy_james
The past and future do not exist. It is foolish to live anywhere but the moment you are present in, you can only be happy now. Most of these shared stories are based on "what if I ... ?" and there is no answer because your imagination creates your destiny
There is freedom
waiting for you
on the breezes
of the sky
and you ask
"what if I fall?"
oh but my darling
what if you fly
JWestland
jimmy_james
Constable_Savage
Scilly.Suffolk
NurseHolliday
mashton
abr
Stonehedge
deleted
Peter_Carter
christianSpaceman
snottyotter
Ramsaye
HatBeard
dst2
not4sale-
Post a reply
About
In the news
Posted by
@Platini
With a daesh of hundreds and thousands over the top.