Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the erosion-of-rights dept.

The Guardian reports that Britain's most senior Muslim policeman, Mak Chisty, has warned "Islamist propaganda is so potent it is influencing children as young as five and should be countered with intensified monitoring to detect the earliest signs of anti-western sentiment". He gives several examples of indoctrination being forced upon children as young as five (Christmas being "haram" [an act forbidden by Islam]) and teenagers being groomed to join ISIS.

Chishty said friends and family of youngsters should be intervening much earlier, watching out for subtle, unexplained changes, which could also include sudden negative attitudes towards alcohol, social occasions and western clothing. They should challenge and understand what caused such changes in behaviour, the police commander said, and seek help, if needs be from the police, if they are worried.

[...] Chishty said communities in Britain had to act much earlier. He said: "We need to now be less precious about the private space. This is not about us invading private thoughts, but acknowledging that it is in these private spaces where this [extremism] first germinates. The purpose of private-space intervention is to engage, explore, explain, educate or eradicate. Hate and extremism is not acceptable in our society, and if people cannot be educated, then hate and harmful extremism must be eradicated through all lawful means." [...] Asked to define "private space", Chishty said: "It's anything from walking down the road, looking at a mobile, to someone in a bedroom surfing the net, to someone in a shisha cafe talking about things."

[...] He said friends and family were best placed to intervene. Questions should be asked, he said, if someone stops shopping at Marks & Spencer [a shop perceived to be Jewish owned] or starts voicing criticism. He said it could be they were just fed up with the store, but alternatively they could have "hatred for that store". He said the community should "look out for each other", that ISIS was "un-Islamic", as proven by its barbarity.

turgid notes:

As an atheist who enthusiastically celebrates Christmas, eats chocolate eggs at Easter and carves turnips or pumpkins at Halloween, I find it very strange that people of many religions often artificially exclude themselves from harmless and enjoyable local traditional customs. I find it very sad that we have young people brought up in a strictly-controlled environment cut off from the ideas and views of the rest of the world. I also find it abhorrent that the Establishment now finds itself publicly calling for the complete abandonment one of the core values of individual liberty.

Maybe the rest of us shouldn't worry because we're not Muslim? Where have I heard this before?

Meanwhile, our government is attempting to tear up the Human Rights Act. It's easier to control when the proles have no rights.


[Editor's Comment: Original Submission. Significant edits to this submission have been made - acknowledgement of the submitter has been changed to reflect this. janrinok]

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:36AM (#187883)

    Nigga, don yo be actin White.

    Hajji, don yo be actin Western.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:42AM (#187885)

      OK, let's try again without the Ebonics.

      Just as Black youths are told not to "act" White, Muslim youths are told not to "act" Western.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:30PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:30PM (#187981)

        Its an interesting interpretation, might be correct, but my first guess after the observation of UK teens running away from home to join ISIS was its not a muslim thing its just the same old story of teens doing stupid stuff for attention, then when the journalists feed them with attention, more of them do the same.

        Its the same old story for at least decades if not all eternity. Pretty much since the concept of "teen" was invented (you're biologically an adult, but we're going to frustrate you by treating you 100% like a child until an arbitrary calendar date at which time you're 100% an adult).

        Flappers, motorcycle gangs, plain old gangland gangs, hippies, band groupies, rabid fans of shitty music, teen suicides ... I think we could play this game for awhile listing similar historical examples. The only new aspect is the teens accurately figured out that the only thing more likely to piss off their parents and get them in the news than offing themselves or becoming hippies is, at least in 2015, to join ISIS.

        If you want it to go away, ignore news reports. Eventually the journalists will figure out that "teen ISIS" stories don't generate page clicks, and stop reporting, at which time the "cry for attention" emo teen crowd will find something else to get attention. The problem is I'm not sure offing themselves is necessarily "better" than joining ISIS. Or is it "better" to become a drug addict than join ISIS? Or on the bright side maybe they'd turn to shitty music for attention, hip hop / rap fanaticism would be less bad than ISIS... well... probably.

        • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:40PM

          by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:40PM (#187983)

          Oh and as a follow up I forgot to mention its hardly binary. I'm certain at least some percentage of motivation for the teens is attention seeking, and at least some percentage is ops suggestion that its cultural belonging / pruning.

          As a third proposal I just came up with the interesting idea that its like civil disobedience. From what little I know most of the kids get their media attention and are tossed in protective custody unharmed long before reaching the front lines. In that way its kind of a civil disobedience. Clearly the west has killed millions of innocent muslim civilians in the quest for oil and glory while obeying Israels orders, you'd have to be some kind of moron not to see that. If you're part of the group thats being genocided, and 99% of the population around you isn't in the group and don't give a F about a million innocent dead arab civilians, which is also certainly true, then you could interpret making a public statement and getting tossed into protective custody as good ole civil disobedience. Once in awhile, teens, being young and stupid, probably fail in their attempt at "making a statement" and instead of making a big public show of civil disobedience and sitting in the klink for awhile, end up coming back in body bags or captured on the battle front rather than enroute. By analogy imagine how we'd think of civil rights demonstrators if 99.9% of the population actively disagreed with them... "they're just crazy idiot kids running away from home to march and shout slogans none of us believe in toss em in jail and let em rot"

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:34PM (#188008)

        > Just as Black youths are told not to "act" White, Muslim youths are told not to "act" Western.

        That's a great point, if your goal is disprove the premise since the "acting white" meme is just a racist myth. [vox.com]

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:48PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:48PM (#188166)

          No, it's not, that's impossible.

          From your own link:

          Even President Barack Obama said in 2004, when he was running for US Senate, "Children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white."

          President Obama is black, and it's impossible for blacks to be racist according to people on the left, so logically it's impossible for "acting white" to be a racist myth since a black person is repeating it.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:24PM (#188175)

            > it's impossible for blacks to be racist according to people on the left,

            So are you admitting to be a person on the left?
            You are using their definitions, that makes you a leftie doesn't it?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:52PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:52PM (#188268)

            and it's impossible for blacks to be racist according to people on the left

            Mindless demonization of the "other side" at its finest. Only Fox News and the idiots who watch it would be stupid enough to think that anyone in the world would think that being white is a requirement to be racist. Morons always seem to think that its impossible for other people to be smarter than them, shit like this is a great example of that.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @12:26AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @12:26AM (#188361)

              and it's impossible for blacks to be racist according to people on the left

              Mindless demonization of the "other side" at its finest. Only Fox News and the idiots who watch it would be stupid enough to think that anyone in the world would think that being white is a requirement to be racist.

              Actually, I have heard more than once that "being white is a requirement to be racist". The first time I heard it, I thought it was the most idiotic bit of polemic I had ever heard. I still do. I won't bother to google this one for you, but I'm pretty sure you will find some "interesting" links if you do.

              • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @12:52AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @12:52AM (#188371)

                > Actually, I have heard more than once that "being white is a requirement to be racist"

                Despite the fact that google finds exactly zero instances of that phrase, I am sure the sentiment behind it has been expressed more than once.

                But attributing the views of the extreme to the mainstream is just intellectual dishonesty. We don't say that "according to people on the right all blacks are inferior" just because some extremist right-wingers have said it.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @03:16PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @03:16PM (#188640)

                  That's because it's not explicitly worded as such, see this article [rationalwiki.org] and especially the references.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Wednesday May 27 2015, @05:04PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday May 27 2015, @05:04PM (#188694)

              Bullshit. Leftists (ones on the far left) actually believe this. Here's a few links:

              http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/12/university-diversity-officer-minority-women-cant-be-racist/ [dailycaller.com]

              http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/03/24/joy-behar-oppressed-minorities-cant-be-racist [newsbusters.org] (this one's a right-wing source, but they're quoting a person on "The View")

              http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/mandelarhodesscholars/2010/03/23/one-simple-reason-why-blacks-cant-be-racist/ [thoughtleader.co.za]

              Just google for "minorities can't be racist" for lots more.

              The whole assertion rests on the idea that "oppressed minorities" have no political power, so they can't use their prejudice to harm others.

              So no, it isn't Faux News watchers who believe this, it's actually the wackos on the fringes of the left.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:24PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:24PM (#188279)

            > impossible for "acting white" to be a racist myth since a black person is repeating it.

            Yet another unintentionally revealing post by a racist.
            You aren't bothering to dispute the "myth" part of that claim - your problem is with the idea that it is a racist myth.
            Because that is the important part.

            The fact that racists, like the OP, cite it all the time, that's irrelevant. Just so long as the myth itself isn't racist.

            Priorities!

          • (Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:30AM

            by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:30AM (#188388) Journal

            Disclaimer: I modded both you and GP up.

            I found this section more interesting:

            For example, in a study published in the American Sociological Review in 1998, James Ainsworth-Darnell and Douglas Downey, using data from the National Educational Longitudinal Study, found that black students offered more optimistic responses than their white counterparts to questions about the following: (1) the kind of occupation they expected to have at age 30, (2) the importance of education to success, (3) whether they felt that teachers treated them well, (4) whether the teachers were good, (4) whether it was okay to break rules, (5) whether it was okay to cheat, (6) whether other students viewed them as a "good student" (6) whether other students viewed them as a "troublemaker," and (7) whether they tried as hard as they could in class.

            Findings like these fly in the face of the idea that black students think academic achievement is "white" or negative, or that it's something they must actively shun for acceptance and popularity.

            When Toldson analyzed raw data from a 2005 CBS News monthly poll of 1,000 high school students, who were asked their opinions on being smart and other smart students, he saw this reflected again.

            Students were asked, "Thinking about the kids who get good grades in your school, which one of these best describes how you see them: 1) cool, 2) normal, 3) weird, 4) boring, or 5) admired?" The responses of black males, black females, white males, and white females were around the same. But black males were the most likely (17 percent) to consider such students "cool."

            Students also answered this question: "In general, if you really did well in school, is that something you would be proud of and tell all your friends about, or something you would be embarrassed about and keep to yourself?" Eighty-nine percent of all students said they would be "proud and tell all." Black females were top among this group, with 95 percent saying they'd be proud. Meanwhile, white males, at 17 percent, were the most likely to say they would be "embarrassed or keep to self" or report that they "did not know" how they would handle the news that they were doing very well academically.

            The next part of the article demonstrates that the “nerd stigma” exists in all races. Another section (before the above quote) mentions that black students with a 3.5 GPA tend to be the most popular in the black demographic.

            In regards to that study, Toldson criticises “Fryer's 2006 research paper ‘Acting White: The Social Price Paid by the Best and the Brightest Minority Students:’”

            Plus, Toldson pointed out, even if the results had shown that the highest-achieving students at all schools had the fewest friends, that would have indicated a connection between grades and popularity, but wouldn't have supported the core of the "acting white" theory itself. "Methodologically, the study has to make the ostensible leap that the number of friends a black student has is a direct measure and a consequence of acting white," he explained.

            My take-away is that it could be the case that factors we already know have an effect on student performance such as family stability and parental involvement are the main problem. These factors would also coincide with poverty.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:48AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:48AM (#187886) Journal

    Ever since reading Josef Conrad's "Under Western Eyes" and "Secret Agent", I must admit that most conspiracy theory starts in Britain. Not sure why, unless they are an especially timorous race. Or perhaps it is the constant invasions from the mainland! Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Danes, Frenchmen in the Monty Python version. Moreso, methinks, versooth, is the break with the Catholic Church. Ol' Henry the Eight and his numerous wives. There was always the idea that Catholics might try to reclaim the throne of Britain, from Mary Queen of Scots, to the Bonny Prince Charlie, to Anthony Flew. So there is constant fear of treason, by Catholics. Remember, remember, the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot? Maybe with good reason! The Four Musketeers trying to head off the treason of Cardinal Richeleiu and that really hot widow, to bring England back under the control of the One True and Universal Church? Or was it the other way around? And since then it has been the conspiracy of the week. Belgians named "Goldfinger". United Europe and a single currency. MI5 completely manned by Soviet moles (OK, that one was true!). Eurovision. Need we say more? So now it is Muslim babies working as sleeper onesies agents for the international socialist Vatican House of Merovingians? More insane than Dan Brown, if that is possible. And at least Dan knows what he writes is fiction. Right now, I am looking out for Papist tendencies in my children. Or worse, Scottish independence sympathy!

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:40AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:40AM (#187899) Journal

      Or perhaps it is the constant invasions from the mainland! Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Danes, Frenchmen in the Monty Python version.

      Where's your control group? Britain isn't the only country that was constantly invaded through its history, most of the East and South East Europe countries were. You want something in the West? Think Spain
      Yet I haven't heard about a "Greek/Macedonian conspiracy", nor about a "Spanish conspiracy".
      --
      Vandal invasions [wikipedia.org], Goths invasions [wikipedia.org], hunnic invasions [wikipedia.org] (here's the map of Roman empire invasions [wikipedia.org]), turkish invasions [wikipedia.org], mongols invasions [wikipedia.org], moors conquest [wikipedia.org], Ottoman conquests [wikipedia.org] - only about 1500 years of continuous invasions , conquests and occupations.

      I'd rather think their predilection to conspiracy is something related to their island and the weather - too small a space to get along one with the other, too miserable weather to have something better to do (as far back as 13th century [wikipedia.org])
      (large grin)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:52AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:52AM (#187905)

        Where I live, we sometimes have weekends of British Invasion, which is nice, because that means the music on the radio is usually better.

        Never seen any more Brits here than normal while it's going on though.

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:00AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:00AM (#187910) Journal

        Perfectly willing to acknowledge alternative theories, as long as the fundamental facts are respected! So, what about the Irish? (And my real point is the extent to which the conspiracy bug has been adopted by Americans, especially Texans! Jade Helms, Moron Labe!)

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:00PM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:00PM (#187974) Journal

          So, what about the Irish?

          You may be onto something here.

          And my real point is the extent to which the conspiracy bug has been adopted by Americans

          Can't help you with that, but it may be that the seed was planted a while back by an Englisman [wikipedia.org] and an american-born Australian of Irish descendance [wikipedia.org].

          Coincidence? I don't think so.

          (grin)

          --
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:43PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:43PM (#187984)

          Moron Labe!

          What's that, precious? Like Johny Walker Black Label, only for molons?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:53PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:53PM (#188189)

            Obviously you are reading "labe!" as "label": one of these contains an exclamation point.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:26PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:26PM (#188281)

              >>> Moron Labe!
              >>
              >> What's that, precious? Like Johny Walker Black Label, only for molons?
              >
              > Obviously you are reading "labe!" as "label": one of these contains an exclamation point.

              Spelling nazi smackdown FTW!

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by zocalo on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:45AM

        by zocalo (302) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:45AM (#187926)

        Yet I haven't heard about a "Greek/Macedonian conspiracy", nor about a "Spanish conspiracy".

        You haven't heard of it because NOBODY expects the Spanish Conspiracy!

        --
        UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:45PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:45PM (#188078)

          NEWSFLASH: Franco still dead!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:49AM (#187887)

    Assimilation is unlikely, it's not in the nature of islam and the problems are self-reinforcing.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tower-hamlets-mayor-lutfur-rahman-found-guilty-of-election-corruption-and-barred-from-office-10198149.html [independent.co.uk]

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/radical-group-hizb-ut-tahrir-segregates-males-and-females-at-uws-muslim-group-meeting/story-fni0cx12-1227355751307?nk=8a7d3efd74421d8b7bdf29012a2406c8 [dailytelegraph.com.au]

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/16/mediterranean-migrants-eu/25864433/ [usatoday.com]

    What's more likely, unless measures are taken now, is that Europe is destroyed. They won't all fit in Europe any way. There are billions in Africa + the Middle East. How many settlers arriving in Europe before Europe has the exact same problems as the source countries? How many settlers arriving in Europe will relieve the problems in the source countries?

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:55AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:55AM (#187889)

      The Japanese are totally incomprehensible. Assimilation is impossible.

      Seventy years later, anime and manga are everywhere. Assimilation happened and cultures adapted.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:40AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:40AM (#187941)

        Seen any Japanese suicide bombers or demands for special Shinto laws to govern Japanese ghettos? oh wait, no Japanese ghetto. Or teachings that west is evil? etc.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:18AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:18AM (#187946)

          Not anymore. Assimilation made these things unnecessary.

          Japanese suicide bombers [wikipedia.org]
          Japanese ghettos [wikipedia.org]

          • (Score: 2) by Jiro on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:17PM

            by Jiro (3176) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:17PM (#188103)

            That wasn't stopped by assimilation, that was stopped by killing lots of Japanese people to the point where they lost the war. I'm sure that killing enough Islams will prevent Islamic suicide bombings, but I'm not sure that's the solution you want.

            • (Score: 2) by Jiro on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:19PM

              by Jiro (3176) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:19PM (#188105)

              Islams->Muslims

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Ryuugami on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:25AM

          by Ryuugami (2925) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:25AM (#187948)

          Seen any Japanese suicide bombers

          You honestly never heard of kamikaze?

          or demands for special Shinto laws to govern Japanese ghettos? oh wait, no Japanese ghetto.

          At least the Japanese are very lax towards religion. They can be really bad about ideologies, though.

          Or teachings that west is evil? etc.

          I'd say that two centuries of refusing to deal with foreigners [wikipedia.org] counts.
          Also, whenever Japanese started wars of aggression, they treated their enemies worse than animals.

          I mostly like the current Japanese society (I've been living in Japan for almost a decade now), but there are some really, really disturbing things in their history.

          --
          If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:58AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:58AM (#187973)

            And you must have never heard of Fumi e [wikipedia.org]. Modern Japan is pretty tolerant to religion, but that has only been true since their westernization.

            • (Score: 2) by Ryuugami on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:11PM

              by Ryuugami (2925) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:11PM (#187996)

              I've heard of it. I did mean modern Japan, in the last 100 years or so. Should've made that explicit :)
              Besides, I got the impression that fumie has more to do with stamping out any foreign influence during the Sakoku period than actual religious persecution. Ie, not "it's other religion, so it's bad" but "it's foreign, so it's bad".

              BTW, I actually find the modern Japanese approach towards religion quite admirable. They mix and match elements of Shinto, Buddhism, Christianity and probably a few others. For example, most Japanese visit a Shinto shrine and pray every New Year's, marry in a church, and have Buddhist funerals. It's fascinating.

              Anecdote: one of my professors thanks spent whiteboard markers for their service before throwing them away, because (according to Shinto) even in inanimate things there resides a god (kami).

              --
              If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
              • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:56PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:56PM (#188043)

                You can't honestly say that kamikaze is part of modern Japan. The Japan from WW2 cannot be compared to it's modern counterpart, they are completely different beasts. It's silly to define historical periods based on arbitrary time segments.

                • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:30PM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:30PM (#188153)

                  "Modern" Japan began with the Meiji Restoration, which was in the 1800s.

              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:43PM

                by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:43PM (#188076)

                I did mean modern Japan, in the last 100 years or so.

                Which still includes all of WWII, but okay.

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:13PM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:13PM (#188146)

                  Since you can't thread You have a reading comprehension problem. Your last two posts have been 'corrections' that didn't actually correct anything.
                  Fumi-e was from the 1600s not the last 100 years.

                  You're calling *me* the one with the reading comprehension problem? This Fumi-e bit was the part of your* comment I *didn't* have a problem with. Hence why I only quoted the bit I was talking about.

                  *Not sure if it was you or someone else due to AC. Some posters around here have the annoying habit of mixing posting logged in and out.

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:17PM

                    by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:17PM (#188148)

                    Since you can't thread comments [soylentnews.org] properly:

                    You have a reading comprehension problem. Your last two posts have been 'corrections' that didn't actually correct anything.
                    Fumi-e was from the 1600s not the last 100 years.

                    Ugh--bad html tag. I really have to stop skipping Preview :P
                    Cf. Muphry's Law vis a vis threading

                    --
                    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:24PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:24PM (#188150)

                    > Hence why I only quoted the bit I was talking about.

                    Neither the part you quoted nor the entire post you responded to said anything about WWII.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:11PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:11PM (#187997)

          > demands for special Shinto laws to govern Japanese ghettos?

          Perhaps you don't reminder the collective freakout that the Pope would control the US [wikipedia.org] when Kennedy was elected.
          And how many counties have religiously based laws like banning alcohol, gambling and sales on sunday and holidays? [wikipedia.org]
          And then there are beth din courts. [bethdin.org]

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:13PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:13PM (#188145)

        So you're arguing that western nations need to invade the middle east in full force, drop a few nuclear bombs on those countries just for good measure, make them completely and unconditionally surrender, then take over their societies with governments that we run (and I don't mean like Saddam, I mean we write their constitutions and set up their governments the way we want), and we shoot anyone who causes too much trouble?

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:54AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:54AM (#187888)

    That's the beef of this article. 1984 wasn't meant to be an instruction manual!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:18AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:18AM (#187893)

      The only thing Orwell got wrong was the year.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:21AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @04:21AM (#188945)

        1984 was finished by George Orwell (Eric Blair) in 1948.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:50AM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:50AM (#187971) Journal

      Actually, quite the opposite - but you have to read TFA in its entirety to understand what is being said. The police are, in this instance, suggesting that the people best able to combat radicalism are friends and family. The police are not looking for additional powers, are not suggesting that new crimes should be created, and they acknowledge the lack of success that they are having.

      On average, in the UK, 1 schoolchild per day is detected attempting to leave the UK to join ISIS. When police actually stop such things from happening the parents and friends of the subject appear to be genuinely surprised and claim that they didn't see any warning signs of radicalisation in the period leading up to the police becoming involved. Chishty is suggesting that the friends and family need to be aware that the signs will not necessarily be obvious - such as vocally proclaiming support or preaching violent action - but are more likely to be detected in subtle changes in the behaviour of the individual concerned. Additionally, friends and family should be taking action much sooner than they are at present. The police are not able to detect such things, nor are they seeking any additional powers to make such a thing possible, but Chishty is suggesting, that for 5 year olds to express extreme and incorrect views, or people in their early teens decide to leave everything and everyone they love behind and seek to join ISIS, only those who are close to the subject will be able to see the minor changes that might be the only clues as to what they are being told, and subsequently their true views and intentions.

      Chishty also stresses that it is not a particular group or section of the Muslim community that are vulnerable. He has genuine concerns regarding the risks posed to his own children and he warns that it could happen to anyone in the community.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:19PM (#187999)

        Kids are easy to recruit because many of them are seeking adventure, lack the life experience necessary to recognize bullshit and have teen angst which makes them feel disaffected from society. That last one seems to be a common denominator for almost all radicalisation - a disconnect from the social support system of community leaves them vulnerable to other communities that promise them inclusion.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by The Archon V2.0 on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:14PM

        by The Archon V2.0 (3887) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:14PM (#188051)

        > Actually, quite the opposite - but you have to read TFA in its entirety to understand what is being said.

        I did. I saw a police officer saying "If I feel the need to be extra vigilant, then I think you need to feel the need to be extra vigilant." and "We need to now be less precious about the private space." and - while not in quotes, "... the police commander said, and seek help, if needs be from the police, if they are worried." What are the police supposed to do if the kid's only known crime is espousing radical beliefs?

        > On average, in the UK, 1 schoolchild per day is detected attempting to leave the UK to join ISIS.

        I admit I hadn't heard this, and Google is just bringing up a dozen flavors of article on the three girls who were stopped from going. Do you have a link to an article discussing this further? I'd like to read up on it.

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:36PM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:36PM (#188070) Journal
          There is a link in TFA which is titled: "Muslims, some 700 so far, being lured from their bedrooms to Syria by Islamic State (Isis) propaganda." It was accessible when we prepared the story for release but now seems to be asking for a log-in. I'll try to find an alternative way of accessing it. Googling for it reveals what you found, either the same story of the 3 schoolgirls, or estimates of between 500 - 2500 britons of all ages who have travelled to Syria, although a proportion of them have returned to the UK. There was a report looking specifically at school age children but I haven't located it yet. I'll keep trying.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:08AM

    by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:08AM (#187891)

    Ok, lets start with turgid's idiocy.

    As an atheist.. I find it very strange that people of many religions often artificially exclude themselves from harmless and enjoyable local traditional customs.

    Lemme see.. could it be because as an atheist you see all other religious things as harmless local customs instead of expressions of religious beliefs? But I can promise ya somebody expects you to participate in a 'harmless custom' that offends YOUR religious beliefs and you will almost certainly lose your effing mind. Since 90+% of atheists worship the State and are card carrying progs it wouldn't be too hard to propose a politically incorrect hypothetical you would lose yer bowels over. Should we all make it a game here to propose such?

    Now to the bigger themes implied in the actual story. The problem is a nation can only be tolerant and allow wide freedom when the vast majority are self regulating by less than official law into modes of thought and action, customs and culture, that are compatible enough to permit living together in a society. We in the West have forgotten this and have embarked on programs to import vast populations who do not understand us, do not want to understand us, have no interest in even learning how to coexist and in point of fact wish to destroy us. This can't end well, at least for us.

    The only solution is to get serious about assimilation and any of the new arrivals (and if things continue getting worse even some of the people we foolishly granted citizenship to... somehow. Like I said, not going to end well.) who do not wish to assimilate, to actually join the societies they chose to move to, they must be sent away. No I'm not saying they should be forced to convert, to violate their religion or that sort of thing, just to say that if they plan to live in Great Britain they should plan to become culturally 'British', or in the U.S. they become, broadly speaking, 'American.' It means no more living in closed ethnic enclaves, it certainly means no more talk of Sharia courts, their children attend schools that teach Western traditions, etc.

    It isn't going to be pretty. We will continue to avert our gaze and listen to the silver tongues devils in the media and left political establishment insist it is all going to work out, delaying the day of rectification and making it even messier when it finally comes... probably when a large enough atrocity is committed that the pubic will demand action. And action in a panic is always messier than rational, well considered, debated action.

    And yea, if that sounds like saying that the only way to save free societies is to break a fair number of the rules we define a free society by; yup. When you do really stupid things the solution is often almost as bad as the problem. But a one time fix to the problem of millions of immigrants who never should have been permited is better than suicide. IF we can do it once and stop AND prevent the kind of power Western governments will have to be given to do it can be recalled when it is over. And history argues against that rosy scenario. Messy.

    Now before the outrage, kindly stop and count to ten then tell us all your superior solution instead.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:25AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:25AM (#187894)

      k, lets start with turgid's idiocy.

      ..

      Lemme see.. could it be because as an atheist [...] YOUR religious beliefs

      Atheist means a person who doesn't have religious beliefs, you fucking idiot. <3

      tell us all your superior solution instead.

      How bout we treat islamists like any other group? We already have so much legal code that not even a scholar of the art can recite it all, much less explain it.

      • (Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:43AM

        by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:43AM (#187901)

        Normally avoid replying to ACs but this is a common misconception and other will certainly bring it up...

        Atheist means a person who doesn't have religious beliefs, you fucking idiot.

        In theory you are correct, in practice not so much. Seen lots of atheists, never met one without a identifiable religion though. Just because you reject the idea of a deity doesn't mean you don't have a religion, something almost every one of em misses while being so smug and superior about having no truck with none of that superstitious nonsense. Then going on about different but equally irrational beliefs. Sorry buddy, unless you can convince everyone that Buddhism and a buttload of other religions without a deity aren't religions, any all encompassing belief system that proposes an explanation for Life, the Universe and Everything is a religion. Now show me an atheist who doesn't profess a belief in some answer to The Ultimate Question?

        And no, Science can't answer it. Many make the mistake of confusing Scientism for Science though; but Science (at least in any form we currently understand) can't answer any of the truly important questions.

        Btw, that is why I'm an agnostic. I am wise enough to know what I don't know.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:37AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:37AM (#187922)

          He isn't an fucking idiot, you are just fucking ignorant about the English language. The prefix "a" means "lack of", "amoral" is "lacking of morals", asexual means "lacking sexuality", apolitical" means "lacking of political (interest)", atheist means "lacking of theism".

          Seen lots of atheists, never met one without a identifiable religion though.

          Well boo-hoo, you've seen anecdotal evidence. I've seen a lot of religious assholes but you don't see me claiming that religion makes people assholes or that most religious are assholes.

          Just because you reject the idea of a deity doesn't mean you don't have a religion

          Strictly not, but it requires a belief and worship in a supernatural controlling power [oxforddictionaries.com].

          Sorry buddy, unless you can convince everyone that Buddhism and a buttload of other religions without a deity aren't religions, any all encompassing belief system that proposes an explanation for Life, the Universe and Everything is a religion.

          The word atheism was conceived in an environment where virtually all known religions were theistic. In practice, it has since grown to encompass rejection of all supernatural belief systems. You know, kind of like you don't need horses to pull modern cars, language tends to evolve in order to meet modern demands.

          Now show me an atheist who doesn't profess a belief in some answer to The Ultimate Question?

          A belief is not automatically a belief in the supernatural. I believe in the laws of thermodynamics even through I lack the knowledge to verify them. That doesn't mean I a physics-worshiper, it means I'm using heuristic reasoning.

          Btw, that is why I'm an agnostic. I am wise enough to know what I don't know.

          "That's why I'm so much better than all of you."

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:30PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:30PM (#188154)

            Seen lots of atheists, never met one without a identifiable religion though.

            Well boo-hoo, you've seen anecdotal evidence. I've seen a lot of religious assholes but you don't see me claiming that religion makes people assholes or that most religious are assholes.

            That's odd. I've seen at least a few comments here on SN make precisely that claim. *Shrug* Maybe you are different.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:22PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:22PM (#188172)

            If is weird that you want to cite the OED for the definition of religion, but prefer to use your own definition of atheism.

            Could it be that the OED doesn't agree with your broad definition of atheism?
            Ahyup!

            atheism [oxforddictionaries.com]
            Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

            Hhhm.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:05AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:05AM (#188378)

              Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

              Sounds fair to me. What's the issue with this definition?

        • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:37AM

          by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:37AM (#187949)

          In theory you are correct, in practice not so much. Seen lots of atheists, never met one without a identifiable religion though. Just because you reject the idea of a deity doesn't mean you don't have a religion, something almost every one of em misses while being so smug and superior about having no truck with none of that superstitious nonsense.

          Your definition of religion must be so broad that it's impossible to not be part of a religion. In which case, yes, I guess everyone is part of a religion, but that's meaningless now.

          but Science (at least in any form we currently understand) can't answer any of the truly important questions.

          "truly important" means what? Is increasing the quality of life of just about everyone not truly important?

        • (Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:26PM

          by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:26PM (#188208) Journal

          Btw, that is why I'm an agnostic. I am wise enough to know what I don't know.

          And I'm wise enough to know that there is no evidence for the existence of a god, and there can never be for any credible definition of a god. Therefore...

          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:00PM

            by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:00PM (#188304)

            Neither can there be credible evidence against the proposition. Same can be said for the theory we all live in a computer simulation, etc. And that is the point, we don't know and by all the science we currently possess the evidence points to the impossibility of knowing. Science runs back to the Big Bang and hits a brick wall since the definition of a singularity is that zero information can pass, thus we can never know anything about what, if anything, is/was on the other side. Heck, we don't even really have the proper language for asking that question since time itself came from the Big Bang so we lack a proper word for an event 'before' the Big Bang.

            So any attempt to develop a working theory of Life, the Universe and Everything must, by definition, be irrational and entirely taken as an article of faith. Which makes it religious. Irrational ideas are like math that ends up dividing by zero and other impossibilities, the answer is simply NaN and thus impossible to compare or rank other than to say they are all equally NaN. So which religious system is more irrational? The question itself is irrational.

        • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by jmorris on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:48PM

          by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:48PM (#188296)

          Replying to myself.... since besides hosing the close of the quote tag I apparently entirely failed to communicate the concept I was going for.

          A religion is nothing more than a non rational belief system that explains the unexplained. And yes, pretty much everybody has one... including atheists. Most human minds seem to require answers to the Ultimate Question and since reason can't give one people rationalize themselves into an irrational one. Where did the Universe come from? Why are we here? What are we supposed to be doing? And so on. Science, reason, logic, all that stuff eventually fails when confronted with the really big questions, at least it does at our present level of understanding, and people start filling in the gaps with all sorts of nonsense.

          At least most (one notable exception) of the major world religions/philosophical systems have the benefit of being evolutionary advantageous while most of the new age atheistic ones are contra survival and will get culled out just like 90+% of religious systems throughout history have. On the other hand most 'atheists' seem to be more about rebelling (i.e. daddy issues) against the established authority and tend to throw out all of the proven to be successful bits of the old moral codes along with the supernatural parts of traditional religions and thus end up more defined by what they are trying to be the opposite of. The end result is that they end up looking more like cheap devil cultists with the pentagrams ripped off of the robes.

          Note that conferring a evolutionary benefit on the society practicing them does not in any way speak to their 'Truth' or even 'Truthiness.'

          • (Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:26AM

            by Anal Pumpernickel (776) on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:26AM (#188385)

            A religion is nothing more than a non rational belief system that explains the unexplained. And yes, pretty much everybody has one...

            Well, nice job making the word "religion" useless. As for me, I lack a belief in a god or gods (which makes me an atheist), and when I don't know the answer to something, I say I don't know. And for practical reality, I act and form beliefs based on probability.

            On the other hand most 'atheists' seem to be more about rebelling (i.e. daddy issues) against the established authority and tend to throw out all of the proven to be successful bits of the old moral codes along with the supernatural parts of traditional religions and thus end up more defined by what they are trying to be the opposite of.

            Where did you get your data? And I'd say religion doesn't own morality; religion may take credit for it, but they used their own brains to come up with the rules whether they like it or not. Religion just makes assertions that things are wrong or right (usually because some sky daddy says so). It's not a meaningful way to develop a moral code.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:56PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:56PM (#188629)

            A religion is nothing more than a non rational belief system that explains the unexplained.

            No, religion is the belief in a mystical world order. Believing that aliens made man is both irrational and non-religious. You are re-defining words in order to fit your narrative.

            Most human minds seem to require answers to the Ultimate Question and since reason can't give one people rationalize themselves into an irrational one.

            And most people follow a religion. Hmmm... coincidence?

            Science, reason, logic, all that stuff eventually fails when confronted with the really big questions, at least it does at our present level of understanding, and people start filling in the gaps with all sorts of nonsense.

            Science is a bottom-up approach, if we ever answer all the "big questions", then we'd be done with science because we will know everything. Of course we don't know all the answers. That doesn't mean science fails, it means it hasn't accomplished everything yet. Your definition of failure is meaningless, it means that you have "failed" any test as soon as you start it.
            Filling the gaps with nonsense is called "making a hypothesis". That's part of the process. It's a valid research method. It's not irrational to consider a crazy idea, because sometimes it turns out to be true. Did you know that there are really really tiny little creatures EVERYWHERE? They are all over your skin, and your walls and even inside you!

            At least most (one notable exception) of the major world religions/philosophical systems have the benefit of being evolutionary advantageous while most of the new age atheistic ones are contra survival and will get culled out just like 90+% of religious systems throughout history have.

            "Evolutionary advantageous" is not a virtue. Rape is evolutionary advantageous, because it makes your genes more likely to be passed on. Evolution sucks.

            On the other hand most 'atheists' seem to be more about rebelling (i.e. daddy issues) against the established authority and tend to throw out all of the proven to be successful bits of the old moral codes along with the supernatural parts of traditional religions and thus end up more defined by what they are trying to be the opposite of.

            Are you projecting your personal issues here? That sounds awfully specific description for hundreds of millions of people across a multitude of different cultures.

            The end result is that they end up looking more like cheap devil cultists with the pentagrams ripped off of the robes.

            Well damn, you got us. The gig is over guys, they know that we all secretly suck Satan's cock. Well, time to don the silly dresses robes and go burn some churches.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:00AM (#187909)

        No actually, atheist means a person who doesn't have a belief in a deity which does not exclude other forms of religious hogwash.

        • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:47AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:47AM (#187927) Journal

          "turgid's Fallacy", hmmm, I like the ring of that! Just sounds good. "Hey, you just committed turgid's fallacy!" It would be so sweet to be able to say that, and even more sweet if anyone had the slightest idea what you are talking about. Could someone please give textbook style definition?

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Kell on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:51AM

            by Kell (292) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:51AM (#187972)

            I'll take a shot:

            Turgid's Fallacy - n. "The belief or position that partaking in the trappings of a religion-derived holiday implicitly asserts adherence to that religion, approval of its politics, or the actions of its most extreme advocates. For example 'If you give gifts at Christmas, then it means you support the oppression of indigenous minorities by European colonial powers!' is an instance of Turgid's Fallacy".

            --
            Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
            • (Score: 2) by Kell on Thursday May 28 2015, @01:22AM

              by Kell (292) on Thursday May 28 2015, @01:22AM (#188896)

              Thinking again, Turgid's Fallacy might be more generally expressed as "The mistaken notion that any agreement with someone about something implies any agreement with them about other things."

              --
              Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:54PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:54PM (#188084)

          Are you referring to Henotheism [wikipedia.org] or Monolatrism [wikipedia.org]?

          And yes, atheism by definition excludes the possibility of a god. The word you're looking for is "agnosticism."

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:27PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:27PM (#188110)

            >> No actually, atheist means a person who doesn't have a belief in a deity which does not exclude other forms of religious hogwash.
            >
            >And yes, atheism by definition excludes the possibility of a god.

            You have a reading comprehension problem. Your last two posts have been 'corrections' that didn't actually correct anything.
            Fumi-e was from the 1600s not the last 100 years.
            And you do not need a deity to have magical beliefs like an afterlife or the age of aquarius.

            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:05PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:05PM (#188141)

              No, you have a definition problem. I stand by my previous post. Atheism means you believe no gods do exist, or can exist. Stop trying to make the debate about things which atheism does not cover. Atheism makes no claim about afterlives. Literally the only thing atheism covers is the existence, or lack thereof, of a god. It's in the fucking name.

              And don't reply to a post and also address something I said god knows where elsewhere, without at least including a link to it.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:13PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:13PM (#188144)

                >>> Atheist means a person who doesn't have religious beliefs, you fucking idiot. >
                >> No actually, atheist means a person who doesn't have a belief in a deity which does not exclude other forms of religious hogwash.

                > No, you have a definition problem. I stand by my previous post. Atheism means you believe no gods do exist, or can exist.

                So, tell me, where does the word "god" or any of its synonyms appear in the above?
                It doesn't. Ergo you suck at reading.

                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:39AM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:39AM (#188389)

                  "Having no religious beliefs" and "believing religion is foolish" are not necessarily the same thing. I can have no particular personal religious beliefs, and also accept the possibility that somebody else has gotten it right. "Everyone else are fucking morons; atheism is *obviously* the only possible answer" is too arrogant a thing for me to say. But we're not really arguing the issue; we're just arguing definitions.

                  And you insist on using a wrong definition of atheism, which I've pointed out several times now. Good day, sir.

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:45AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @01:45AM (#188390)

                    > "Having no religious beliefs"

                    By your own words you said. "Atheism means you believe no gods do exist, or can exist." Now you are changing it to mean "no religious beliefs" which, BTW, is a definition not supported by the OED, [oxforddictionaries.com] not even as a minority definition. You had it right the first time, you just weren't paying attention.

                    > "believing religion is foolish"

                    Whatevers dude. You are clearly, unequivocally, suck at reading comprehension. You either decide to violently agree with the posts you are correcting or go off onto some tertiary tangent.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:30AM (#187895)

    Can we place these Muslims in jail?
    Cause we need to have a safe world to live in before they have a chance to destroy our quality of living.

    Please think of the white children!

    • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:00AM

      by davester666 (155) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:00AM (#187933)

      Many of them are already there. It's called "The Middle East".

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:41PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:41PM (#188163)

        If so, the jailors need to up their game.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:30AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:30AM (#187896)

    Thought I was a reasonable bloke, but all this talk of Allah, Mohammed, and the 42 or so virgins is making me think that particle physics and sociology are no longer true! It is like Fundamentalist Islam is a black hole, inexorably pulling me in to a position of jihad against everything Christian, Jewish, Western, or Tory! I can't help myself! It is just so damn attractive to have something that I might be able to believe in, and could get me an actual wife if I go to Syria!

    OK, listen up, Brits! National prostitute corps! You did it before in times of war. But if you want all those youths to not be recruited, get them laid, and get them laid fast. It was called "Hooker's Girls" in the American Civil War. "Comfort Women" in the Asian theatre in WWII by the Japanese. The only thing that can defeat religious fundamentalism is sex, and lots of sex, and even same sex sex. Just ask the Duggars!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:50PM

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:50PM (#187988)

      Aside from the funnies if you indoctrinate kids for 20 years that when they work hard they'll get the great job with the great car and a great picket fence house in the subdivision or condo in the city of london, and then after 20 years of "all of you will make it if you work hard enough" then "ha ha only got jobs for 50% of you and 50% of you fail at life and we don't get a F about you anymore" thats going to lead to lots of butthurt.

      So the dude who was told he'd get that accounting career if he worked hard, worked hard, and instead there aren't enough jobs, maybe he didn't win the genetic lottery or kiss butt to the right people or was born in the wrong place, so he works at the convenience store part time or maybe not even that, he's 1) not gonna get laid 2) going to be really pissed off. Quite possibly leading to not being the most patriotic young man on the face of the earth "they screwed me over, I'll screw them over".

    • (Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:33PM

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:33PM (#188215) Journal

      You jest, but sexual control is an important part of religion, In this case, it's used to motivate people (males) to give their lives in some holy battle and to motivate others (females) to become obedient wives for these would-be martyrs in the name of their religion, which they accept as fact, unquestioningly.

      In many religions, it's also used to discourage birth control, to ensure an endless supply of hungry and poor (and therefore obedient and malleable) believers.

      Of course, it results in the wholesale abuse of women and children, poverty and hunger and the spread of debilitating incurable diseases (e.g. HIV/AIDS).

      But we can't say that lest we offend someone.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:48AM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:48AM (#187903) Homepage
    we could simply look forward to the day when religious belief has a cozy little classification in the DSM.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:56AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:56AM (#187956)

      Is there a classification in the DSM for shredding the DSM and burning the shreds?

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @02:58PM (#188044)

      Amen to that. Oh wait...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:38PM (#188159)

      Aren't there already enough complaints that the DSM is so watered-down and covers too much of basic human existence as to be useless? And you're hoping it becomes even more useless?

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Beige on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:48AM

    by Beige (3989) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:48AM (#187904) Homepage

    Perhaps we ought to take a critical view of how we indoctrinate our young as well, though. The submitter states he is an "atheist who enthusiastically celebrates Christmas", but would he really go as far as saying that our modern-day Christmas tradition is so culturally superiour that it ought to be force-fed to every child on the planet?

    For example, in our modern secular representation of Santa's workshop the "elves" are typically represented as unpaid slave labour working around the clock in oppressive working conditions. This kind of ethically questionable arrangement is echoed in classics such as the "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" TV-movie from 1964, where Santa generally comes across as a narcissistic tyrant.

    Sure, perhaps I am writing this a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I do wonder specifically which part of our pagan-Christian tradition the "atheist who enthusiastically celebrates Christmas" considers crucial? Should we not be more concerned with promoting and celebrating modern secular values such as equality and human rights?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:38AM (#187923)

      "ok, here is your xmas gift!"

      *crumpling paper*

      "just what I always wanted! Another plastic toy."

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:36PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @03:36PM (#188069)

      Why do you assume the elves are unpaid?

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:41PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:41PM (#188162)

        Why do you assume they are?

    • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:31PM

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:31PM (#188155)

      Christmas is a great tradition, but it's not a Christian tradition. It was originally called Saturnalia, and was a pagan Roman holiday. They added on the tree bit from some pagan Germanic tradition. So if you're an atheist and celebrating Christmas (with the tree and gift-giving components, not any talk about the birth of Jesus, who wasn't born in the wintertime anyway according to the Bible), then you're really following a tradition started by people with long-dead religions. I don't know anyone who worships Saturn any more.

      As for the bit about Santa, that's just some silly story we feed to kids which no one actually believes because it's so ridiculous. That's what makes these great traditions: we celebrate family and all that, spend time with them, exchange gifts, etc., but there isn't any crazy religious dogma underlying it. It's totally harmless. Also, people like regular holidays: it gives them time off from work, something to look forward to, etc.

      As for the elves, again no one actually believes any of that stuff, but the usual narrative is that the elves actually *like* to work that fast and are good at it (except for Hermey, who's better at dentistry). As for being "unpaid", they have a nice place to live, free room and board, etc., how is that "unpaid"? Basically they live in a small communist society it seems, though they have to answer to Santa. What good would money be to them in a closed society where there's nothing to buy? That doesn't even make sense. That's like complaining that someone in some ancient nomadic hunter-gatherer tribe was "unpaid". They contribute to the tribe, and the tribe in turn takes care of them.

      • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:23PM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:23PM (#188173) Journal

        I agree with much of what you have written.

        there isn't any crazy religious dogma underlying it

        To you perhaps, but many Christians do celebrate the religious meaning behind Christmas. The day marks an important (but certainly not the most important) day in the Christian calendar. However, it is not what everyone else thinks about the significance of Christmas that is important in this particular discussion. It is the fact that some Muslims appear to view the date not only as a significant date in someone else's religion, but as an event that is actually forbidden by their own scriptures. Whether that is an accurate interpretation of their scriptures is not something that I am qualified to debate, but many Muslims seem to dispute this interpretation. However, when children as young as 5 years old are being told it as a bald fact it is creating in them a belief that it is something that is wrong and should be redressed. This belief results in conflict between Islam and Christianity well into the future, but it has no place in a tolerant society.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:29PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:29PM (#188176)

          So wait, if many christians do celeberate the religious meaning of christmas - as in the birth of jesus the lord that is ok.
          But when muslim children are told that since jesus is just a prophet (the 2nd most important prophet of them all BTW) but not God, they can't participate in christmas, that's not ok?
          And the jews who can't participate in christmas either, what about them?

          Seems like hypocrisy to me.

          • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:44PM

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:44PM (#188186) Journal

            Where did I say that no-one else could participate? People are free to do as they wish whether they believe in Christ, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, some other Deity, or not. I was merely pointing out that to some, there is a religious significance to the event, even if many choose to treat it as something else entirely.

            I have also joined Muslim families celebrate the end of Ramadan, and been present when Jews have celebrated the Passover. I don't have to judge or follow their religion, nor does their belief have to have any affect on mine. I am merely joining friends who wish to celebrate something of importance to them.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:55PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:55PM (#188190)

              > Where did I say that no-one else could participate?

              You have missed my point.

              (1) religious meaning of xmas is birth of jesus the lord
              (2) you say it is OK for people who believe jesus is the lord to celebrate xmas
              (3) you say it is bad for people who believe jesus is not the lord to be forbidden from celebrating christmas

              Why is (2) OK but (3) is bad?

              Perhaps there is a vocabulary issue here, as spelled out in TFS, haram means forbidden. As in forbidden for muslims, just like things like eating pork are also haram.

              • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Frost on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:38PM

                by Frost (3313) on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:38PM (#189272)

                Er... How about: allowing harmless activities is good; forbidding harmless activities is bad. Is that simple enough for you?

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:25AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @12:25AM (#189917)

                  > Er... How about: allowing harmless activities is good; forbidding harmless activities is bad. Is that simple enough for you?

                  Ok then. What harm is there in abstaining from religious events that directly contradict your religion?
                  Are jews harmed by refusing to eat pork?

          • (Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:53PM

            by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:53PM (#188229) Journal

            For me, Christmas (and New Year) is a family get-together when people will make a special effort to travel to one location to spend time with each other, decorate the house, put up a tree decorated with tinsel, lights and baubles, give each other (hopefully) fun presents, be nice to each other, eat lots of nice food, drink beer, wine, whisky etc. and so on.

            The Jesus myth is just a piece of cultural background. Everyone knows that Christmas has European origins that precede Christianity for perhaps thousands of years, Easter as well,

            I don't see what "magic" is done by bringing a tree into the house and decorating it (as if it beams energy to god or something, with a coded message saying, "Let me into Heaven please") any more than my cactus plants on the window sill do.

            Similarly with Easter, which goes back to pagan times where people would celebrate the fact that Nature was "regenerating" with all the new baby animals being born, flowers blooming and the daylight hours getting longer. Of course, the Christians came along and appropriated it and linked it to the myth of Christ's resurrection (and the egg being the stone rolled over the entrance to the tomb).

            Halloween is funny, because some people really do still believe in evil spirits and that Halloween is "worshiping" them (whatever that means)...

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:07PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:07PM (#188196)

          To you perhaps, but many Christians do celebrate the religious meaning behind Christmas.

          I'm not really talking about the devout or fundamentalist Christians; sorry if I wasn't clear, I was addressing the holiday from the perspective of atheists, agnostics, not-so-religious people, etc., which is probably most people in western society these days. We almost all celebrate Christmas, but it's turned into a mostly non-religious wintertime holiday for gift-giving and taking a week off from work. Yes, there's a bunch of Christians who complain that "we've taken the Christ out of Christmas!!", but this isn't about them, because the rest of us don't celebrate the holiday that way.

          It is the fact that some Muslims appear to view the date not only as a significant date in someone else's religion, but as an event that is actually forbidden by their own scriptures.

          They're probably right. And all kinds of other things are forbidden by their scriptures too, while various things are permitted or encouraged, such as murdering infidels. That's why Islam is such a dangerous thing to have in Western society, and why we should be actively preventing such people from joining our societies. With the Christians, we don't have much choice; they were already here, and we're still working on ridding ourselves of the worst parts of the Christian religion (look how awful it used to be hundreds of years ago, when they burned people at the stake for "witchcraft", heresy, or just plain being the wrong kind of Christian); we don't need to go back to that backwardsness.

          This belief results in conflict between Islam and Christianity well into the future, but it has no place in a tolerant society.

          True, and it proves that Islam has no place in tolerant society, because Islam itself is completely intolerant. You can't bring intolerant people into a tolerant society and expect them to magically become tolerant. Personally, I think this is one of the moral dilemmas that Western society needs to figure out pretty soon: how do you stay tolerant with people who are intolerant, and demand that their intolerance become the norm? Is it possible to bring intolerant people into a society and remain a tolerant society? Or does the society need to actively exclude intolerant people from immigrating en masse?

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:30PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @07:30PM (#188213)

            They're probably right. And all kinds of other things are forbidden by their scriptures too, while various things are permitted or encouraged, such as murdering infidels. That's why Islam is such a dangerous thing to have in Western society,

            Whenever this lie is made it needs to be debunked. I know you won't change your faith, because you've been corrected before and still insist on repeating the lie, but no one else should be fooled by you.

            “Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in God has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And God hears and knows all things.” (Quran 2:256)

            “If it had been your Lord’s will, all of the people on Earth would have believed. Would you then compel the people so to have them believe?” (Quran 10:99)

            “The Messenger’s duty is but to proclaim the Message.” (Quran 5:99)

            “So if they dispute with you, say ‘I have submitted my whole self to God, and so have those who follow me.’ And say to the People of the Scripture and to the unlearned: ‘Do you also submit yourselves?’ If they do, then they are on right guidance. But if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message. And in God’s sight are all of His servants.” (Quran 3:20)

            In order to believe the muslim scripture permits or even encourages killing non-believers, you have to wilfully ignore scripture like the above.

            You will now respond with an out of context interpretation of the so-called sword verse [quranicstudies.com] and probably a reference to an obscure and highly disputed theory called abrogation which is basically a modern witch-hunt - all scripture that contradicts your version of one line in the quaran doesn't count because muslims be cray.

            • (Score: 2) by turgid on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:46PM

              by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday May 26 2015, @09:46PM (#188295) Journal

              You make a very important point. Let me explain my reason for submitting this story. Throughout all periods of history there have been people who form radical religious movements, having thought they have discovered some absolute truth that no one has ever seen before. At the moment, there is understandable fear and disgust at the actions of IS/ISIS/ISIL and similar groups. I fear that the political establishment is using this fear (and ignorance) to erode our rights and freedoms, ostensibly to protect us from this bogeyman by appealing to our fear and ignorance, so that it can monitor and control us all more completely. I respect people's need to believe and I want to live in a society where we can all believe as our own minds require.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:16AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @02:16AM (#188404)

        I worship Saturn, the ring is so pretty

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:03AM

    by cubancigar11 (330) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:03AM (#187911) Homepage Journal

    After so much effort during WW1 and WW2, Europe had finally managed to get a homogenous society. Germans in Germany, french in France, Jews in their promised land (which we support, as long as it is not in Europe) - and gypsies... well we don't care about them.

    And then these lib types made us feel ashamed for killing away the misfits. And the homos started calling Cologne [wikipedia.org] as the Gay Capital. And then blacks became common. But at least they were wearing suits and shirts so we could overlook the color and get on with our lives.

    And now these Moslems, coming from Africa. You tolerate one bit of diversity under multiculturalism [wikipedia.org] and every 3rd grade human starts behaving as if he owns this space as much as we do. No you do not - this is Europe - the birth place of white people and their superior race as evidenced by the riches we bask in that no one has in rest of the world. Well, except Australia and America. But our people only built those places to glory.

    Okay, so British had some problems. They pissed all over the world for couple of hundred years so some drops were bound to land on their feet. They couldn't maintain the homogeneity of culture we Europeans achieved but we need to stand with them in the opposition of ISIS/ISIL/Al-queda/whatever group that is murdering our people in their own country. No one touches white people because we are the beacons of freedom. Our army is the army of freedom. Our corporations bring freedom to market. And how can we export freedom if don't have it at our home? We need to maintain our freedom. If that involves purity of raceculture then what is wrong with it?

  • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:11AM

    by t-3 (4907) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @08:11AM (#187916)

    I can't believe so many people exist that will continue to spout this hateful bullshit. Even worse, so many people are eager to lap it up so they can blame all the world's problems on someone else.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:21AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:21AM (#187961)

      Swap out the Muslim angle with Scientology and your panties would be all in knots about brainwashing our youth by an evil cult.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:26PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:26PM (#188001)

        > Swap out the Muslim angle with Scientology and your panties would be all in knots about brainwashing our youth by an evil cult.

        No. Scientology the religion is harmless.
        The Church of Scientology is a rapacious organization of specific individuals.
        There are alternatives. [wikipedia.org]

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:46PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:46PM (#188165)

          Comparing the Church of Scientology to ISIS is indeed a good comparison.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @07:43AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 27 2015, @07:43AM (#188504)

            Mormonism: Nineteenth Century Scientology! "We had alien planets and Xenu before it was cool!"

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by K_benzoate on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:25PM

      by K_benzoate (5036) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:25PM (#188151)

      Religion, in the broadest sense, is a huge source of unnecessary strife and division in the world. I'd stake a claim that it's the single biggest source of same. Moreover, it isn't just an ex post facto or ad hoc justification for other sinister motivations or goals--like resource and territory acquisition (or at the very least, isn't always). It is a source of problems and disharmony that would simply not exist if everyone was an atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker, etc. We would still have other problems, but the base rate of violence, tribalism, and oppression would be immediately lowered.

      Then you begin to notice that there are qualitative difference between the different religions of the world. Some are more or less suited to causing problems for other religions, and the non-religious. This is easiest to see by picking an extreme example from the other side of the spectrum. Setting aside Islam for the moment, consider Jainism [wikipedia.org]. Devout Jains are so committed to non-violent that they can barely function. They take great care when walking not to step on insects. They're vegetarians, of course, and some even refrain from eating plants that grow under the surface of the soil because bugs and worms could be killed during harvest. Suffice to say, we have absolutely nothing to fear from the Jains no matter how fundamentalist they are. In fact, the more fundamentalist they are the more peaceful they'll be.

      You cannot say the same thing for Islam or Christianity. The more strictly and closely you follow the Quran (or the Bible) the more trouble you'll cause for secular, liberal, pluralistic, society.

      There's also an important difference between Islam and Christianity today. Very few Christians are attempting to create a community based on a strict interpretation of the bible. There are a few small groups, but they mostly make a point to isolate themselves so their fanaticism is little more than a curiosity. With the exception of the insignificant and quiescent Vatican (population ~900), there are no officially "Christian" nations. There are several self-styled Islamic Republics, and a sizable Jihadi movement currently rampaging through the Levant.

      The reasons for this becomes clear when you study the two religions. Christianity began as a religion to give comfort to slaves, the downtrodden, and the weak. It celebrates a sort of meekness and deference to secular, Earthly, authorities. Christians are instructed to "render unto Caesar" that which is his, and trust that God will set things right in the end. Even slaves are told not to rock the boat. [biblehub.com] Just keep your head down, trust in Jesus Christ, observe a few rites, maybe spread the good news when it's safe to do so, and wait out your days on Earth. Islam, by contrast, is a much more pro-active and triumphant faith. It celebrates war and conquest, conversion or destruction of all other ways of life. It makes no distinction between church and state, and indeed embraces a merging of the two. It's a total solution for human life, covering topics as diverse as sexuality to finance.

      I should add that I am actually hopeful that Islam will moderate itself in the fullness of time, as Christianity did. I think this period will be bloodier and more protracted because of doctrinal differences between Islam and Christianity, and cultural differences, but it will happen. There are more secular Muslims emerging every year [wikipedia.org], and though many have to speak out from the safety of Western nations [wikipedia.org], their message is getting back home.

      --
      Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @06:14PM (#188171)

        You've made anti-theism your religion. So much of what you believe about religion is at best over-simplification and at worst baseless bigotry.

        For example, your hero Aayan Hirsi Ali who you claim has to speak out from the safety of a western nation lied about abuse and living in the middle of a war in order to qualify for asylum, her lies were so big they caused the collapse the ruling coalition led by her racist political party (that literally wanted to deport gays to Iran [libertysecurity.org]) in the netherlands causing her to flee the country for the US. Where she has since defended Anders Breivik's mass-killing of 69 children. [dialoginternational.com]

  • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:39AM

    by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:39AM (#187951) Journal

    So what should we do with families were children are indoctrinated to mortally hate or refuse the country they live in?

    • (Score: 2) by pe1rxq on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:59AM

      by pe1rxq (844) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @10:59AM (#187957) Homepage

      A while back the british shipped them to the west....... Didn't seem to stop them from indoctrinating a few more generations though....

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @11:04AM (#187958)

      The children must be confiscated, deprogrammed, and indoctrinated into solders to kill for queen and country.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:32PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:32PM (#188118)

      Call it The Poettering Defense: [slashdot.org]

      "If you hate the culture so much, why don't you just leave?"

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:49PM

        by kaszz (4211) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @04:49PM (#188132) Journal

        So they will hate you, won't leave and make their kids to harm you in the feature. It's about doing not telling.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @05:44PM (#188164)

      You mean like what Fox News has been doing for as long as Obama has been president?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 26 2015, @12:28PM (#187980)

    Questions should be asked, he said, if someone stops shopping at Marks & Spencer [a shop perceived to be Jewish owned] or starts voicing criticism

    He is putting ideas in the listener's mind that NOT choosing a jewish business makes you a bad person and you deserve to be killed, just like questioning (scientifically investigating) a holocaust etc makes you racist etc.

    I wonder how much he got paid to say that. These people are handling the situation psychologically (just as before): speak the obvious most of the time, and add a small amount of propaganda. The entire purpose of the whole message is to get the small amount of propaganda out.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by gallondr00nk on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:53PM

    by gallondr00nk (392) on Tuesday May 26 2015, @01:53PM (#188018)

    That word sums the debate around radicalisation. As a white Briton, I don't have the faintest idea about Islamic culture (other than knowing a little about Middle Eastern history, and a little about Sufism and the Moors), and I'm sure I'm not alone. There's very little understanding. With that in mind, how can we make reasonable judgments about what's happening in a community we're so fucking ignorant of?

    It seems the establishment doesn't have the foggiest idea why this process is happening, and I doubt it really cares other than to provide an avenue for moralistic arbitrations about how evil these people are. And, of course, more laws, doubtlessly so badly thought out that they'll make the problem worse, rather than better.

    History should have really taught us by now that harsh laws banning certain forbidden expressions will get precisely nowhere.

    To be honest, I'm uncomfortable with the term "radicalisation" generally. What does the term even mean? What values does it hold, and how do we determine what is or is not radical? Max Stirner's Ego and His Own is radical. Neitzche is radical. Shit, Atlas Shrugged is radical. All call for a drastically different society than the one we live in. Stirner and Neitzche in particular even call for the dismantling of democracy itself.

    If being "against western values" is considered an actionable crime (or pre-crime), then what of these books?

    I somehow doubt the government has Stirner in mind. That makes this debate take an unmistakably racist undertone. The British media treats Islam as some sort of enemy within. There's no maturity or subtlety, just hierarchical posturing and sabre waving. It strikes me as an essentially colonial attitude.

    Our government, like all others, is grossly inept at understanding the subtleties of a problem like this.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday May 27 2015, @07:49AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Wednesday May 27 2015, @07:49AM (#188505) Journal

      As a white Briton, I don't have the faintest idea about Islamic culture

      Well, for the sake of the rest of the world I hope you never get a faint idea, or you will have to go off all jihadi and such. Is this really what it is like for Brits? Oh, look, a religion! They believe in stuff, and there is no Queen! Hey, I'm down with that! (And for some reason, I have a cross between "A Clockwork Orange" and Cat Stevens playing in my head right now.)