Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
As tens of millions of Americans come to grips with revelations that data from Facebook may have been used to sway the 2016 presidential election, on the other side of the world, rights groups say hatemongers have taken advantage of the social network to widely disseminate inflammatory, anti-Muslim speech in Myanmar.
The rhetoric is aimed almost exclusively at the disenfranchised Rohingya Muslim minority, a group which has been the target of a sustained campaign of violence and abuse by the Myanmar military, which claims it is targeting terrorists.
Human rights activists inside the country and out tell CNN that posts range from recirculated news articles from pro-government outlets, to misrepresented or faked photos and anti-Rohingya cartoons.
[...] Zuckerberg told Vox hate speech is "a real issue, and we want to make sure that all of the tools that we're bringing to bear on eliminating hate speech, inciting violence, and basically protecting the integrity of civil discussions that we're doing in places like Myanmar, as well as places like the US that do get a disproportionate amount of the attention."
Source: When Facebook becomes 'the beast': Myanmar activists say social media aids genocide
Related Stories
The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to reconsider rules social networks operate under, potentially leading to the most significant reset of the doctrines governing online speech since the 1990s:
For years, giant social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram have operated under two crucial tenets.
The first is that the platforms have the power to decide what content to keep online and what to take down, free from government oversight. The second is that the websites cannot be held legally responsible for most of what their users post online, shielding the companies from lawsuits over libelous speech, extremist content and real-world harm linked to their platforms.
[...] On Friday, the Supreme Court is expected to discuss whether to hear two cases that challenge laws in Texas and Florida barring online platforms from taking down certain political content. Next month, the court is scheduled to hear a case that questions Section 230, a 1996 statute that protects the platforms from liability for the content posted by their users.
[...] The cases are part of a growing global battle over how to handle harmful speech online. In recent years, as Facebook and other sites attracted billions of users and became influential communications conduits, the power they wielded came under increasing scrutiny. Questions arose over how the social networks might have unduly affected elections, genocides, wars and political debates.
[...] If the Supreme Court's justices decide to hear the challenges, they could move to take the cases immediately for the court's term ending in June or for its next term, which runs from October until the summer of 2024.
Related:
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @05:00PM
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @05:32PM (3 children)
Seriously, fuck off ya cunts. The postal service isn't in any way responsible for a terroristic attack planned via snailmail, even if they do fail to open and read each letter.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @06:10PM (2 children)
It's a coordinated attack on free speech online. They attack the platform, but they're really attacking free speech. The platform can be co-opted by the ruling class. (As if it weren't already; this is Failbook after all. Dumb fucks.)
Snailmail can be used to organize the same things Failbook can be used to organize, but snailmail isn't searchable like Failbook posts. Snailmail also doesn't make you aware of similar communications that friends of friends of friends are involved in. Failbook is making to too easy for the working class and masses to coordinate.
wswswswswswswsws has had continuing coverage of various strikes, many going against the union who is supposed to have a monopoly on representation of the working class, among teachers and in a few other sectors like emergency services in Germany and UAW in the USA. Right now I see wswswswsws' theory of why Failbook is being called on the carpet as the most credible.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by arslan on Monday April 09 2018, @10:51PM
Yup. Seems like it to me. Failbook has its flaws with its evil leader making his bed of cash selling people's data they get for free however it is also a platform for free speech. Looks like the more insidious folks are using the former, with the current drama around data monetization, as smoke screen to also sucker punch for latter.
Unfortunately, majority of folks tend to live in a binary world and react in a binary fashion, so they end up eating the sucker punch with a smile on their face. Ignorance is truly bliss.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:36PM
It is right time to refresh a recent memory [wikipedia.org].
(Score: -1, Redundant) by VLM on Monday April 09 2018, @05:55PM (2 children)
They seem to be working hard to support white genocide in the USA, doesn't seem unlikely that they'd be involved in anti-muslim genocide somewhere else.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @06:15PM (1 child)
Should have saved my comment about wswswswswswswsws for this one. Remember that failbook until recently were SJW darlings. What changed? The working class started organizing protests. Now we see how easy it is to turn an SJW darling into an evil Islamophobe villain. Failbook didn't change. Just which way US Pravda/CIA propaganda twists the facts changed.
SJWs take note: they think they're fighting the good fight, but they should now see that they've been nothing more than lapdogs to the ruling class. For a while it was good for the SJWs to pursue a racist (anti-white) and sexist (anti-male) agenda in the interests of using identity politics to prevent the working class from seeing just how much they're being fucked. Now the ruling class needs more out of the SJWs, and the ruling class has the resources and the goons to single out any SJW that doesn't go far enough and smear them in the national
propagandanews.(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @05:53AM
Your medication only helps when you take it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @06:25PM
Every dollar is blood money. There are no degrees of separation. There are no innocents. The whole pool is contaminated. So, until you vote out the killers here in the west that feed the tyrants for personal profit (and their own safety from organized criminals), you should keep your mouth shut about what other people do!
Everything facebook has was given to them on a silver platter, same goes for the power of your governments. If you don't like what they do, then stop supporting them! Just stop it! [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @06:35PM (57 children)
The short version: don't start a genocide you can't finish!
The story starts with illegal aliens pouring over the border from
Bangladesh, where the impoverished and uneducated muslims breed like mad.
These people settle in Burma/Myanmar, creating muslim villages in what
is a strongly Buddhist nation. Of course, the illegal aliens make no effort
to adopt the local culture. To them, infidels can not be tolerated,
people who leave the faith must be killed, and all the usual. So the
illegal aliens start a genocide by attacking Buddhist villages.
It turns out that it is foolish to start a genocide when you are
outnumbered. It takes some serious evil to get a bunch of Buddhists
to pick up weapons and fight, but the Rohingya did it. There in no
major religion more peaceful than Buddhism, so you're totally at fault
if you manage to get the Buddhists waging war.
Then about the activists... we could call them "useful idiots",
given that most of them are westerners with islamophilia. Buddhism
apparently ranks lower on the social justice victimhood scale.
Buddhists are at least not evil. They deserve our support.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @07:29PM (1 child)
Who else remembers when Aung San Suu Kyi was a peaceful democratic liberal activist before she became the new Hitler in the media because she oppressed those poor Muslims who invaded and attacked her country?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @07:32PM
Or: Nobel Peace Prize winner turns out to be shit once in power for a while. Where have I heard that one before?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:27AM (54 children)
Funny what counts as genocide these days. Illegal immigrants (which let us note isn't established!) of the wrong ethnicity and religion is now "genocide". But that's playing from the genocide playbook. If you're going to exile or kill a bunch of innocent people, it helps to pretend that they're guilty of something dire first.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:25AM (5 children)
The genocide is the Rohingya deciding to attack the native villages, which are of course Buddhist and are being attacked for that reason. In other words, the natives of the country are "the wrong ethnicity and religion" in their own country.
At best, you could say that Rohingya getting killed is a second genocide. It's self-defense though, which the Buddhist natives have a right to.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:56AM (4 children)
Ok, should be evidence of that right? Last I checked [bbc.com], it was things like police posts, not things like villages.
[...]
So, it's not fitting the narrative you're spinning. And Buddhists can be just as evil as anyone else.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:31PM (3 children)
> Rohingya insurgents armed with knives and home-made bombs attacked more than 30 police posts in northern Rakhine
BTFO them all out of the country is the appropriate response, unless you have solid proof of a false flag.
Is it fair to the innocent rohingya? nope. Guess what, war ain't fair.
And, war fought with money or demographics is not a better war, it is a coward one.
Sabotage and terrorism instead of an uniform and a machine gun makes not a warrior, but a lowly spy.
Gen. Nguyen was right, Sun Tzu is cancer.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:01PM (2 children)
Or we could simply not be dicks, eh? Let us also keep in mind that a fair portion of that population aren't immigrants.
So that's your excuse? War ain't fair, so let's harm and kill a bunch of innocent people while we're at it?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Bot on Tuesday April 10 2018, @04:34PM (1 child)
what excuse? your political organization called islam tries a coup in your country. you btfo them. there is no need for excuses.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 11 2018, @02:15PM
There is no such political organization for starters. You're not even wrong.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @04:42AM (47 children)
Funny how you sweep 1400 years of violent expansionism and genocide under the rug. The attackers invading Myanmar do have a past. Bangladesh used to be Buddhist as was Afghanistan. Myanmar knows the deal and is fighting back. Their only mistake was not establishing a strong social media presence first to establish sympathy for their struggle.
It is no surprise that social media is being abused to promote the interests of the killer invaders. Islamists are major stakeholders in many of the social media companies and some probably outsource moderation to Islamist countries. Islamists took up social media against Myanmar and especially against its leader at the end of last summer. Criticism of Islam is forbidden in most social media sites by the Islamists controlling the sites, so there is no real discussion allowed and the news becomes one-sided.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 10 2018, @04:55AM (46 children)
Because the present people aren't responsible for that past.
Ok, so what? Sounds like an appropriate use of social media. And funny how in this litany of evils supposedly committed by the Islamists, use of social media ranks up there. Certainly confirms my suspicion that you're blowing smoke.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Bot on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:16PM (2 children)
>Because the present people aren't responsible for that past
so you support neo nazi attempts at building a new and better society, I guess.
godwin in one
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:04PM (1 child)
I support legal attempts. Getting on Facebook and espousing your views is one such legal attempt.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday April 11 2018, @08:20AM
They are legal, they are controversial because they don't respect the spirit of the law, but the letter of the law is respected.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:52PM (42 children)
They aren't responsible for the past, but they are repeating it today. They have a battle plan laid out in the Koran, and they are following it. They absolutely need to be held accountable for this ongoing and unending fight. As long as they accept the content of that book, they are on a path to destroy modern civilization. This is sadly a battle to the death, and a refusal to fight will ensure a loss.
You at the doctor: "Well, that little bit of cancer isn't crushing an organ at the moment, so just leave it. Please only take out the lumps that are crushing my organs right now."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 10 2018, @03:11PM (41 children)
Not seeing it myself.
Why again are only they being held accountable for some imaginary conflict?
As opposed to Christians and the Bible, Communists and Das Kapital, or the many other religions and ideologies with a violent history? What makes Islam so special?
I grant that Islam is relatively violent and unaccepting of other belief systems, but I draw the line at harming innocents merely because they have Islamic cooties. It's far better to punish or reward based on behavior than on beliefs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @05:57PM (6 children)
1. It's not imaginary. If you can't see this, it isn't for lack of evidence. It's willful.
2. Nobody else has to be held accountable because nobody else is doing that shit.
Christians nearly never kick off a holy war or go attack people for their beliefs. In a world of billions of people you may find a few exceptions, but they are nothing compared to the intense violence of Islam. A few exceptional cases does not make the religions equivalent.
Communists were vigorously opposed. We had that whole nuclear arms race, the proxy wars (Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, etc.), the trade restrictions against Warsaw Pact nations, the painful effort to chase down communists in the USA, the stand-off with Cuba, etc. This is the minimum effort that should be applied to dealing with Islam.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 11 2018, @04:44AM
Bullshit. You've had a chance to show evidence. But all we see is a) a Muslim ethnic group only part of which are immigrants, and b) a small rebellion which could be dealt with in a far gentler and just way than genocide. Really here the bottom line is that you're advocating the persecution and murder of innocent people and you've yet to come up with a reason why we should take you seriously.
We have to look at what's actually going on, not your bullshit fantasies. Anyone can claim anyone is doing wrong without even the pretense of evidence and demand genocide in response. It'll be heavily Orwellian, of course. But if you're not interested in truth, then it doesn't matter to you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 11 2018, @02:26PM (4 children)
They did plenty of times in the past. Why are Christians given a pass? Answer: because they don't do that any more, due in large part to huge cultural shifts to peaceful, accepting belief systems, laws against such things, and religious freedom. We simply apply the same processes of culture and law to Islam to get the same results.
Exactly my problem with this whole thing. You claim, completely without justification, that Islam "does that shit". But we're speaking of people not ideology. What has the Islamic refugee done? At worst, it's have too many kids and be in the wrong place. That's a really pathetic accusation. They aren't doing holy wars - given the numbers, there would be huge numbers of deaths from the resulting fighting, if there was a real holy war going on rather than an imaginary one.
And that's the huge problem with this. There's no evidence to support your argument. You're pulling this fantasy out of your ass.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @08:06PM (3 children)
Good luck with that. Please don't drag me along for the ride.
You are so confident that they will see the superiority of your own culture. You think that, surely, they will abandon their stone-age barbaric ways. They will see the light!
This is not a gamble that a wise person would make.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 12 2018, @03:50AM (2 children)
Won't need luck. Sorry, Islamic cooties aren't that fierce.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @07:11AM (1 child)
You're proven wrong in every place within the past 100 years. The only places where it isn't instantly obvious are the ones where the muslim population consists of a handful of well-paid and well-educated people... and even there, we see problems.
It's as crazy as claiming that communism will work, or that gendered behavior is purely social conditioning, or that gun-free zones will work better than drug-free zones.
Islam defends itself. Those who question it are attacked. Those who "reinterpret" the Koran are attacked. Those who leave are attacked. Those who fail to join are attacked. Nobody is free to leave, to speak out, to be moderate, or to argue against the most barbaric interpretation. This is why Islam is probably unstoppable and will never be reasonable about anything.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:07PM
Name one such place.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday April 11 2018, @08:27AM (12 children)
> As opposed to Christians and the Bible
Source? because now you are going to cite a passage where JHVH gives orders to israelites and ignore the two liner of instruction that have been left FOR YOU. Good. Then why not go to work, and perform a task the boss gave you one year ago, no matter if it's been already done and the situation changed. See how well it turns out.
It is funny people consider this behavior normal, but they do. Else they would laugh in the face of sionism, which substitutes the messiah for a piece of land which has already been delivered once.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 11 2018, @02:13PM (11 children)
Just like a bunch of people in the past ignored those lines for their own purposes, including rationalizing genocide and slavery. Ideologies based on absolute authority and/or black and white thinking always have the problem that their adherents can interpret the ideology in any conceivable way without any moral or ethical brake on their behavior. We see that in this discussion with one or more ACs having decided that Islam is bad and an ethnic minority in Burma/Myanmar should be driven out of their homes and/or killed merely because they happen to be Islamic.
One even sees you, Bot claiming [soylentnews.org] that innocence doesn't matter.
Since when has the "unfairness" of war been a desirable outcome?
They and you could have similarly decided that Islam is the one true religion and infidels should be persecuted since your beliefs aren't based on any rational or objective standard. Keep in mind that your loony argument is based merely on one existing and having the wrong belief system. One could just flip the bit flag from "Islam bad" to "Islam good" and have an equally valid system.
So why do you do that again? Why aren't you "laughing" in the face of your own beliefs?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @08:21PM (6 children)
Um, yeah, so???
I happen to value western civilization. I will defend it, violently when required.
Sure, you can say there is no "rational or objective standard" for my belief that Muhammed was a pedophile for rubbing his penis on a 6-year-old and having sex with her at age 9. You can say there is no "rational or objective standard" for my belief that chucking LGBT from rooftops isn't very nice. You can say there is no "rational or objective standard" for my belief that women shouldn't be traded like cattle. I'm fine with that degree of being supposedly irrational and subjective. I don't have to cast aside any and all morality/ethics that lacks mathematical rigor.
Western culture is simply better. I don't need a formal proof of this.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 12 2018, @03:59AM (5 children)
You aren't defending it now. Religious and ideological freedom is a big part of what western civilization is. That includes not losing your shit just because someone else happens to be Muslim.
And I would be right because that doesn't rationalize oppressing Muslims today. Nor do any of your other examples do that.
Then why are you so concerned about an inferior belief system? Just triumph over it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 12 2018, @06:07AM (4 children)
It is inferior in terms of human rights and freedom... but Western culture foolishly tolerates an enemy that is determined to end western culture. This is essentially a matter of the "freedom" to accept being enslaved. We're giving people the right to ruin everything.
Western culture is better from my perspective. I doubt that it will survive, but I'll do my part toward that goal. My culture is probably doomed, to be replaced by something like that of Somalia or Yemen or Afghanistan.
Prediction: by the year 2200, the population of the Earth is 99% Muslim and 90% under sharia. At least a dozen billion infidels will have been slaughtered. Modern infrastructure and supply chains will have collapsed, causing many more billions of people to die.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:06PM (2 children)
Prediction: it won't be, because 99% of the world's population won't be interested. You don't even have movement in this direction, let us note.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @03:07AM (1 child)
Depending on exactly how you ask the questions, roughly a quarter of the muslims living in western nations want the full deal. They want sharia, dead infidels, bombings, and so on. They want to live like it is the 7th century, except perhaps with modern toys. The other 3/4 will not oppose, due to apathy and fear.
Put that together with the number of muslims in the world, and it should be obvious that it is wrong to claim that "99% of the world's population won't be interested". Right today, without the projected population changes, well in excess of 5% of the world is wanting the 7th century lifestyle.
The number of muslims in the world will surpass the number of christians near the year 2050. In the various western nations, muslim minorities have much higher birth rates. Pew research says "the average Muslim woman in Europe is expected to have 2.6 children, a full child more than the average non-Muslim woman (1.6 children)." and of course that is a matter of exponential growth/decay. Under 2 means extinctions, and over 2 means growth.
Turkey, once an oddly secular nation full of muslims, is moving away from being secular. That was the only notable example of a muslim country that was secular. Yep, we have movement in the direction.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 13 2018, @07:33AM
Depending on how you ask the questions, you can get a significant fraction of people, not just Muslims, to agree to anything.
And the poll showed that, right? Or is that your uninformed opinion butting in?
Or we could just not waste our time with that dead end argument.
It's merely shifting its ideologies from Kemalism [wikipedia.org] to some flavor of Islamic populism. A century ago, it was murdering [wikipedia.org] hundreds of thousands of Armenians, Assyrians, and other minorities who just so happened to be mostly non-Islamic. It's not doing that today. So it is an improvement despite your assertion.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 13 2018, @07:52AM
I have a very different prediction [soylentnews.org] over that time frame. My prediction is that by 2100, more than 90% of the world, including the Middle East and the entirety of Africa, will be developed world. That includes a tendency towards democracies and secular governments. The differential fertility of the Middle East and Africa will go away.
In addition, we'll see a massive decline in the number and intensity of wars - the developed world won't significantly war with itself, at least in that time.
To back that prediction, I'll note that over the past century everyone from the most democratic country to all but the most repressive tyranny (that would be North Korea) has been improving the lives of its citizens in the same fashion. There is a modest Western-Islamic conflict, but it is being readily won in favor of the West.
I won't extend my prediction to 2200 because I think way too much will change by then to make demographic predictions useful. In particular, I think it likely that we'll have created abusive ideologies over that time frame that will make our modern hysteria over Islam look extremely misguided. People will believe something. I'd rather it be relatively peaceful and constructive like Islam than destructive and consuming like early 20th Communism or Nazism/Fascism was.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday April 11 2018, @11:55PM (3 children)
>Just like a bunch of people in the past ignored those lines for their own purposes...
Which isn't Christian. You recall the story, why did Jesus got crucified? because they did not believe he was somebody special? no, because he could not be used for the political purpose of freeing Israelites from Romans. Barabbas or Jesus? Barabbas. The symbolic meaning: trying to use god for your own purposes is anti-Christian.
> Ideologies based on absolute authority and/or black and white thinking always have the problem that their adherents can interpret the ideology in any conceivable way without any moral or ethical brake on their behavior
This is like telling unambiguous code always has the problem that the processor can output whatever garbage without any static of runtime check. OK, so what about ambiguous, all is grey code?
> One even sees you, Bot claiming that innocence doesn't matter.
Are you trolling or what. It is not a claim in general, not a theorem, and obviously it is not based on a religious or atheist system. It is a description. When Japan attacks, USA put japanese in concentration camps. When partisans attack, Nazis round up civilians and decimate them. When a coup or a revolution comes, you have trouble because of your skin color, your surname, your presence in some black list, whether it's Hutu or Tutsi into your ID card, whether you look rich, whether you look noble. When people X attack your country, you BTFO them or succumb.
Is self sacrifice better? Is giving another chance better or will it result in more blood wasted in the long run? How is the almighty gonna judge you? These are valid questions, but not for this context.
> They and you could have similarly decided that Islam is the one true religion.
Sure, it could have happened. So, I would side with islamic countries and say we are counterattacking the evil west. I would also say that the israel-usa-isis-NGO-leftist axis is quite suspect. So what? the situation, from the point of view of the evil west, is the same.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 12 2018, @04:09AM (2 children)
And yet it happens all the time. So what?
Code didn't get me up in the morning.
Even if that were true, descriptions are irrelevant to moral arguments.
Who are you "describing" here (particularly, given people X aren't, as they weren't in any of your examples, attacking a country)? Sounds like a bunch of genociders who deserve to "succumb".
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday April 12 2018, @09:37AM (1 child)
> And yet it happens all the time. So what?
You tell me, since that it happens all the time was predicted and it's a banal prediction to make.
> Sounds like a bunch of genociders who deserve to "succumb".
LOL sieg heil.
Nobody "deserves" to succumb, not even those isis warriors without uniforms scum. They do succumb if they are weak, they don't if they aren't. If you say "deserve" you imply you can set up a judicial system, but that is either imperfect or requires the attributes of god, omniscience and being out of time. By being inside time, you exit morality and enter contingency, you can do like proper religious men do and say a behavior is bad for such a (theoretical for you) judgment. Hate the sin not the sinner.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:15PM
Ok, it's a waste of your time to do that. That's what I'm telling you.
I quite disagree. Here, we see a bunch of delusional fairy tales about the oppressive nature of Islam while ignoring that the reality is a bunch of innocent people getting hurt. One loses rights, when one deprives the rights of others.
And yet you've been demanding we harm innocent people for a bunch of posts. That doesn't even reach the threshold of "sin".
(Score: 3, Touché) by Bot on Wednesday April 11 2018, @09:16AM (20 children)
> I grant that Islam is relatively violent and unaccepting of other belief systems, but I draw the line at harming innocents merely because they have Islamic cooties. It's far better to punish or reward based on behavior than on beliefs.
ideally yes, but you know how it works.
Islam stomps feet as a minority -> respect minorities, evil westerner!
Islam becomes majority -> respect democracy, evil unbeliever!
If there was a way to ensure muslims do not force their belief on others like they basically have to, I would agree.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 11 2018, @02:14PM (19 children)
Rule of law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 11 2018, @08:10PM (1 child)
Rule of law, as you know it, depends on the general population being educated and solidly westernized.
Rule of law, as they know it, comes from the Koran. Constitutional law is beneath the Koran. The Koran is superior.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 12 2018, @04:10AM
Words have meaning. "Comes from the Koran" isn't rule of law.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday April 12 2018, @09:45AM (16 children)
how are laws changed? something with demo inside? then demography enters the picture. then immigration can be an act of war. Some here are fairly convinced that this is the plan, some hope that what has happened every time everywhere else does not happen this time. Frankly, this time looks different indeed, but I am not betting on a positive outcome.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 12 2018, @12:04PM (15 children)
No, words have meaning. Merely having a bunch of people move in whom you don't like is not an act of war.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 13 2018, @10:27AM (14 children)
> Merely having a bunch of people move in whom you don't like is not an act of war.
That is not what anyone except you is talking about. What is in question are the effects of having a bunch of people move in when their primary purpose is to displace the indigenous culture. That is is classic transmigration. It is not the first time Islamic transmigration has been used against Europe and Europe has not been the only target through history. Transmigration is a traditional operation in jihad, going back 1400 years. Thus it is an act of war.
Immigration is a separate matter, especially when it is done on a small scale. However, a desire for the newcomers to integrate into the host society is a key part of the definition.
If on the other hand, you just have a large scale movement of population from one territory to another you will have settlers or colonists not immigrants.
Too many on the net are intentionally conflating colonists, immigrants, refugees, settlers, and transmigrants. These are all very different groups of people moving around for very different purposes and causing very different effects on the host countries. Even in the best of circumstances and the most earnest intentions, there is no such thing as magic dirt [urbandictionary.com].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 13 2018, @12:53PM (13 children)
No, it's not. This fairy tale is complete bullshit. For example, no one has even bothered to present evidence of intentional displacement of the "indigenous culture" by Muslims (ignoring that the Muslim culture in question was also indigenous to Burma/Myanmar - the label covers both recent immigrants and people whose families have lived in Burma for centuries) while we can read in the newspapers of real world displacement of Muslims by mobs with the connivance of the Myanmar government.
No, that fits the very definition of immigrant. Settlers, colonists, refugees, etc are all immigrants. Their motives, incentives, means, etc are irrelevant to the definition.
So you're going to fix this problem by intentionally conflating these categories for your purposes rather than their purposes?
And yet, if you move the poorest, most illiterate African out of his hovel and into a US city working some menial job, you add at least $10k per year to his value - magic people theory is just as invalid. It's infrastructure. I grant that at least, you or some AC much like you has addressed this with a discussion of the threats of high levels of immigration to such infrastructure (for example, claiming that high levels of Muslims would lead to sharia laws which would be a destruction of Western legal infrastructure). But even then, you don't get that countries like the US can handle modest levels of immigration without a strain as long as one maintains the infrastructure. But that hasn't been happening in recent decades.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Saturday April 14 2018, @10:59AM (9 children)
I don't get you.
No one has even bothered to present evidence of intentional displacement of the "indigenous culture" by Muslims.
A coup is not a displacement of culture?
The no go zones are not a displacement of culture?
The parallel islamic government with sharia courts is not a displacement of culture?
Are literal tons of paper all fabrications?
I got a lot of garbage collection to do if true.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 14 2018, @12:14PM (8 children)
Indeed.
No coup occurred.
They occur when society refuses to provide important law enforcement and other governance services. "No go" areas are thus, ghettos, isolating the immigrants. It's a displacement of culture, but here of immigrant culture to keep it away from the rest of society.
Provide governance and that wouldn't stand. But when you refuse to provide basic services, of course, someone will fill that vacuum be it with their own government, organized crime, and other such stuff.
Link to these things and we can discuss whether they are or not. But don't be surprised if/when they fail to hold up under rational scrutiny.
You probably do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @08:50PM (1 child)
Nope. They don't want non-sharia law. They reject it. To them, it is not legitimate.
Even here in the USA, where we definitely have governance, various islamic communities are setting up sharia courts. (also UK, France, etc.) Within those communities, you are expected to use the sharia court. You are expected to obey the rulings. If you ignore the rulings, bad shit happens to you, so obviously you obey. This gives the sharia courts the force of law.
You might claim we failed to provide governance because "bad shit happens to you", but that is unreasonable. There is simply no way to police a self-isolating community that will not talk to the normal criminal justice system.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:34AM
And yet it's not "they" who are failing to enforce those laws.
And there is a legal basis for doing so (a lot of groups over the years have set up various sorts of arbitration) with clearly delineated limits to what those courts can do.
And what community is that again? You seem to imply that Islamic communities are of that sort. It would be helpful, once again, to have actual evidence to support your assertions.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday April 16 2018, @02:52PM (5 children)
> They occur when society refuses to provide important law enforcement and other governance services.
You are telling me a country like Sweden does that? One of us is living in a bubble.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 16 2018, @06:13PM (4 children)
Yes. They got to the point where idiots are using hand grenades [wikipedia.org] all over the place.
Indeed.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Monday April 16 2018, @11:28PM (3 children)
In my bubble the words 'refuse to provide' cannot be applied if you 'face military class weapons'.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 16 2018, @11:51PM (2 children)
If they had taken them off the street in 2015 (when a "large cache" of such weapons was thought to have been imported), they wouldn't be facing "military class weapons" at all. Basically, it's a complacent police force meets a lucky smuggler.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Tuesday April 17 2018, @02:39PM (1 child)
So your argument is that the iron fist (well actually, the mere application of the law towards criminal behavior) should have been used earlier, but what about agreeing with the ACs advocating the iron fist now?
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 17 2018, @06:46PM
Wouldn't have been much of an iron fist to seize illegally smuggled hand grenades. Enforcing just law is not an iron fist, then or now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @08:43PM (2 children)
As you seem to have guessed, that's a different AC. All the rest are me. I fully agree with him.
The US can not "handle modest levels of immigration" on a long-term basis if those immigrants bring an immutable culture. We can handle a bunch of people from Bhutan or South Korea or Brazil; they don't want us dead and they won't kill family members who decide to be atheist or Christian. Islam is immutable; people within the grip of it are unable to escape, with the penalty being death. Parents will even kill their own kids.
I can see that you are determined to treat people as individuals, as in a court of law. You essentially ask what crime a specific individual has committed. I like that ideal, but sometimes it is unworkable. History shows us what always happens with islam. Denying this obvious truth, with centuries of evidence, is suicidal. If you don't want your culture and offspring to survive, why do you bother living? You might as well off yourself right now, because nothing you do will matter. If you do however wish your culture and offspring to have a future, then you have to fight for that. Step 1 is stopping invaders from arriving. Step 2 is to eliminate invaders who are already present. Alternately, you and your kind can go invade another land, but that takes a sort of energy and willpower that western civilization lost about 2 centuries ago.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 14 2018, @08:53PM
Oh, also not the "1400 years of violent expansionism and genocide" AC. There could be 3 of us.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 15 2018, @06:45AM
Where's this "immutable culture"? Evidence please.
And you should be as well. Sorry, I don't see anything else of your post worth responding to, because you aren't grounding it in reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10 2018, @02:28PM
Don't use Facebook. Use Nethack!
You have found a scroll of genocide!
What class of monsters do you want to genocide? Social Media
Wiped out all Social Media.