Hoi, Do read about exclusion (a sociology term) and given the people concerned it fits. The reason people give and the mechanisms involved are separate.
While we suffer for France, we will suffer the consequences when people no longer appreciate that one of the universal human rights is the right to religion. I was amused to learn about Pastafinarians who had a strainer on their head for their drivers license.. The point is very much each to their own.
When it must be ridiculous to call a spade a spade you fail to appreciate that the hate that is directed to Islam is exactly what was intended. So have a ball and help those assholes achieve their goal. Thanks, GerardM
On 16 November 2015 at 09:36, Isarra Yos zhorishna@gmail.com wrote:
Isaac David makes good points, and writing it off as racist and discrimination is ridiculous. The people who did these things may indeed be bloodlusty assholes, but what led them to this is important too, and denying that will only ensure that it is not understood, not addressed. I don't care if this is the way to tolerance, either - tolerance by itself is meaningless; all you need to do is ignore, and not question, and you can perhaps tolerate anything. What is more difficult is understanding and love, because for these you have to learn, but these are also what actually connect people and allow them to help each other, and to help prevent tragedies like these.
But if you really don't wish to see this discussed, then simply do not discuss it. Don't tell people to shut the fuck up, simply let this aspect of the thread die on its own.
We work on these projects to help people learn, and to learn ourselves. Fae's proposal was not a bad one to this end, and Gnangarra brings up related topics that are also of relevance. These should not be at odds, as these are all important, and all worth working on, covering, building upon.
On 16/11/15 07:14, Pierre-Selim wrote:
Just +1 on the stfu. Le 16 nov. 2015 7:53 AM, "Christophe Henner" <christophe.henner@gmail.com
a écrit :
I'm sorry but just shut the fuck up about "religion".
They're bloodlusty assholes that wanted to kill and divide. Nothing more.
It's not a religious thing (Paris isn't à holy city) or a cultural thing. It's hate. Simple and plain hate.
They'd like us to say it's about religion and culture. Because that jump starts the next sentence, it's us versus them where us has a better culture. And then to start discriminating in our own country.
Because us vs them is the basis of any racist speech.
So please stop making it about culture and religion. Or if you want to make it about culture, make it about the real culture they attacked : tolerance, understanding, love.
That would the best answer we could make.
Thanks
PS: sorry for this email I don't usually send those but hey after that week-end I couldn't restrain myself Le 16 nov. 2015 7:24 AM, "Isaac David" isacdaavid@isacdaavid.info a écrit :
Le dim. 15 nov. 2015 à 23:06, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
a écrit :
Hoi,
Your sarcasm is nothing but discrimination. You throw everybody who beliefs on one pile.
I don't know how anyone could be more explicit on his treatment of the
problems of making an overt generalisation, yet you attack me personally
on
the alleged grounds that I have accused all religious people of being violent.
Just as if a religion, any religion is needed for people to
get off the rails. There are plenty of examples of that.
I never said so. I don't think so. Jainism serves as a good example of
how
faith-based beliefs may be completely harmless depending on what the
claims
are. However, I do think religion is one of the ways some people get off the rails, and that this is a problem that goes largely underestimated
and
unacknowledged, firstly because most people subscribe to a religion and second because it is so easy to confuse the criticism of intolerance and bigotry with actual intolerance and bigotry. But this is irrelevant as
far
as my original reply to Gnangarra and Vandenberg are concerned because I didn't even touch that point. All I said is that I find it extremely dishonest to claim that these attacks had nothing to do with Islam, whatever the extremism and interpretations of ISIS might be and however disconnected and offensive their deeds might look like for the rest of Muslims.
As to who is an actual Muslim and who understands the sunna and its
interpretation particularly in the light of Daesh, they are two distinct questions. Any typical Muslim will leave the finer points to the scholars,
"Leaving" sounds like a bad idea. What is so great about experts is
that they shortcut the access to wisdom, but they shouldn't be used as an
excuse
to waive intellectual responsibility. Scholars disagree, scholars make mistakes , and it will be up to the average person to evaluate the
problem
at hand. Scholars seldom enroll into armed conflict, average people do.
any typical Muslim will disagree with Daesh on many major points. I'm so glad they do and I would like to thank them for it, but this doesn't change a bit the relationship of Islam as a many-stranded
religion
and the attacks at Paris. On the other hand I'm not so comfortable that said major points don't include things like intolerance for other faiths, specially non-Abrahamic ones, death penalty for adultery, the imposition
of
Sharia in Western judicial systems and other topics which are agreed upon by big fractions of Muslims.[1]
By the way, I have no special focus on your religion; it's part of the subject of this thread. Regards
[1]:
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-socie...
Thanks,
GerardMOn 15 November 2015 at 23:09, Isaac David isacdaavid@isacdaavid.info wrote:
<sarcasm>
Yes, because there are many nice self-avowed Jewish, Muslims, Christians, etc. around the world. Therefore when some bad people do something horrible in the name of their cultural and ideological identity it actually has nothing to do with the ideas themselves, it's always got to be some other historical, social or psychological factor, otherwise we would be linking bad guys with good guys.
</sarcasm>
But who are you to decide who is an actual Muslim and who isn't?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Le dim. 15 nov. 2015 à 15:47, John Mark Vandenberg < jayvdb@gmail.com>
a
écrit :
On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 11:17 PM, Gnangarra gnangarra@gmail.com
> wrote: > > Not sure we should be making such a link as the events in Paris > are > >> not >> about Islam just as the actions of the women in Kentucky was not >> a >> reflection of Christianity. Paris is not the only place its >> unfortunately >> its not even the latest place to fall victim to ISIS. >> >> Wikimedia is a world wide community and the focus on Paris >> ignores >> all >> our >> other communities who have over the last week, months. year or >> > longer
have
>> been affected by acts of terrorism, I think we should exercise >> care >> when we >> adopt activities that elevate events or imply some guilt of >> association >> immortalizing that as fact in a place like wikipedia >> >> >> Very much agree broadly with Gnangarra, especially about links > with > Islam. > The most positive and wiki way to respond is to ensure we're being > neutral, and that the reality of all attacks around the world are > being adequately and accurately recorded in a balanced manner from > a > worldwide perspective. > > However the attack on Paris is widely viewed as an escalation, not > because a citizen of one country is more valued than another, > because > some places are more treasured by larger number of people of the > world, and also we're more shocked as we expect they are better > protected, and that creates an elevation of its own. > > I appreciate the Signpost for very tastefully responding, in a > measured
way.
> > > >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-11-11/Galler...
--
> John Vandenberg > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
,
mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe