If I can't burn your holy book without terrorism there's a problem.
If I can't walk down the streets of Tel Aviv dressed like Hitler then there is a problem.
If I can't drive through a small town in 'Bama with a 'I VOTED FOR HILARY' bumper sticker then there is a problem.
If I can't go to a Portland Cider Bar wearing a Make America Great Again hat then there is a problem.
Jessie what the fuck are you talking about
Whataboutism
All around the world there is an issue with others violating some groups value system and then being met with violence. It's not an issue exclusive to Muslims.
I think burning a book is not comparable to dressing like hitler
Whataboutism
You keep putting yourself into the position where you GO somewhere. Sure, don't go to Israel if you're a Nazi.
Don't go to Alabama at all.
Don't go to Portland as a supporter of fascism if you don't want to be labeled as a fascist.
Don't go to a 1st world country if you want to cut off people's heads for burning books. Don't go to places if you don't support the principles they've carved out there. It's not that hard.
Don't burn holy books if you don't want sectarian violence.
But of course the book burners do want violence, that's the whole point.
Burning books doesn't cause any physical harm to anyone. Someone that would hurt other people for burning books doesn't deserve to live in a first world society. Whether it be the Bible, Quran, Torah, whatever. It doesn't even matter if they're baiting people into violence. They're just proving that these individuals have those insane violent tendencies inside of them.
Why would you want to burn their holy book?
Because I support free speech. That means protecting speech I disagree with. If we only defend the speech we like, we no longer have a democracy.
There's also a difference between burning one book and burning all examples of said book.
It's also a question of not applying your religion to others. Your religion does not allow you to burn your own book, but you can't impose that restriction on others, as long as it's a book that they own and are not burning someone else's book in the legal sense of ownership.
No, I mean what is the MOTIVE for the people doing the book burning? What do they hope to achieve in burning it?
The recent example in Sweden was of an Iraq refugee who was protesting his treatment by Muslims in Iraq. He claims his right to free speech was suppressed in Iraq because of Islam.
So it's the same reason everyone protests: to raise awareness of an issue. A more polarising figure, Rasmus Paludan, has also burned qurans. He did so to raise awareness of the growing violence in Muslim communities in Sweden. They proved him right.
Right. Because burning a fundamentalist's most holy book is the best way to promote a reasonable debate on the subject. It wasn't to goad the extremists at all? Because that's really what it looks like to me. It's like me raising the issue of fights outside pubs by punching someone's girlfriend outside a pub.
It's clear you don't believe it's a good way to use his free speech, but that's the beauty of free speech: he doesn't have to ask your permission first.
I don't think extremist-baiting is anything more than pointless self-aggrandizing. It's been obvious to the whole world that extremism is bad, ever since extremists flew planes into buildings in 2001. There is no point to make. We know. Stop pointlessly winding them up and boosting their cause. Do you think the extremists are personally hurt by it? No. They love it when someone does something like this. It shows they are right by proving how terrible the infidels are. They gain followers and the cycle of hatred churns on. Thanks for using your free speech to make the world a little bit shittier for everyone.
I think you have a well-reasoned position. He feels differently. Perhaps you need to come to terms with democracy, and how different people are permitted different opinions?
I support free speech but this guy clearly is using his speech to start violence and I don't have to pretend to be too dumb to notice that.
What do you mean "clearly... using his speech to start violence"? The only people starting violence are the people starting violence. There's no restriction on free speech for hurt feelings. If we only allowed people to practise free speech when it could never offend anyone else, we'd all be silent all the time. The entire premise of the concept is that we can express ourselves when it offends others. That's the whole point. Free speech arose as a central pillar of reason, science, and democracy during the Enlightenment when the Church would hang people for claiming the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe. Can you see why it's important that we allow people to dissent, disagree, and even antagonise one another?
A cute sentiment but not one based in reality.
I'm not allowed to visit Auschwitz dressed in Nazi uniform. I will have violence used against me.
I can't slowly drive around a small town in 'Bama with a gay pride flag and a I VOTED FOR HILARY bumper sticker. I will have violence used against me.
I can't enjoy a Cider at the Cider House wearing my Make America Great Again hat. I will have violence used against me.
In each instance I'm not hurting anyone, I'm just making those around me uncomfortable and anxious with my (to them) questionable views. Yet everyone can clearly see I'm looking for trouble, that the 'speech' has the unsaid addition of 'I want to hurt you when I'm powerful enough'.
It's easier to police the one person doing the antagonizing than it is to police the millions of people from the demographic they're targeting, it's inevitable that a few loons will take matters into their own hands.
These are false comparisons. This is an approved demonstration against Islamic violence(and such). But I guess we all forgot about Charlie H and all the rest. The man did not walk into a mosque on a Tuesday and light a book on fire.
Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few goes against the principles of justice and fairness. Attributing the actions of extremists to all Muslims is like blaming all Christians for the actions of a few extremists within that group. Extremism exists in all religions and ideologies.
No, this is a systemical issue with Islamic countries
Attributing a complex issue to an entire group of countries oversimplifies the situation. Just as with any region, Muslim-majority countries are diverse, each with its unique political, cultural, and historical context.
Blaming all Muslim countries for a problem oversimplifies the factors contributing to the situation. It's important to address specific issues within individual countries rather than making blanket generalizations about an entire religion or group of nations.
No, there's a red line of true harsh oppression going on in Islamic countries in general. This is what is being protested
I understand your concern about instances of oppression in some Islamic countries. It's important to address human rights violations and support efforts to create positive change.
However, it's crucial to remember that oppression can occur in any society, regardless of religious affiliation. Rather than attributing these issues to an entire religion or region, we should focus on advocating for human rights, raising awareness, and supporting efforts that promote justice and equality for all.
Painting an entire group with a broad brush doesn't help us understand the complexities of these situations or work toward meaningful solutions.
It's not*** painting, it's being against a specific culture and pretending it doesn't exist makes it worse
Yeah but if you insult the mob you can't be all surprised if they try to kill you. Free speech protects you from the government. We live in a world were everyone doesn't recognize the same rules law and order.
I look at this the same way as a white guy singing a bunch of rap songs using the n-word as emphatically as possible then posting it on youtube. Sure you have the right to say it but that's not going to stop you from getting your ass beat
Yes, I can be surprised. There's no free speech if people can't argue against regimes, wrongdoings, women being treated unequal, slavery, etc. That is the problem exactly. Also the same false comparison
So you're using examples where Free Speech has failed as an argument against Free Speech? Because you SHOULD be allowed to do the things named in your examples. That's the ideal, were not there yet but that's not a justification to stop the journey.
There you go again with weak arguments that don't compare to this.
Let's try a different track: I'm asking you to to go to all of those places and do all of those actions. It'll be more productive than either (good-faith) getting the conversation distracted responding to explain why those aren't good points or (bad-faith) derailing things just for the fun of being contrarian.
How doesn't it compare?
This is an individual who hates Muslims, doesn't want them in his country. He thinks they are dangerous, so he will prove they are dangerous by antagonizing them in the hope that a few hot heads will take the bait. Then he can say 'look see, all Muslims are violent and we must remove them from our country'.
Just like the guy in the MAGA hat can then say 'Look at how violent the Portlanders are', just like the guy with the Hilary bumper sticker car can then say 'Look at how violent these rural bumpkins are. It's active provocation, not a protest.
Oh yes he is an asshole. As much as I despise religion I would never lower myself to the level of defacing a book. He is also an asshole with rights, rights being threatened by much worse assholes.
Burning books isn't promoting free speech. It's literally the opposite. It's sending the message that we don't accept your ideas. That's why the Nazis did it.
Of course it's free speech. Burning the American flag is free speech. Shitting on a picture of Donald Trump is free speech. Burning Bibles is free speech. All of these happen frequently.
Sure, you're allowed to do it because you have free speech. But don't say that you're promoting the freedom of speech because you're doing it. Book burning is an act that stifles the ideas of whoever wrote that book.
More on topic, the two groups in question are both extremist groups that are opposed to the existence of the other. This isn't about speech, this is about inciting violence.
Against violence committed to those not following Islam
Moving those goal posts pretty quickly....
Book burning is an act that stifles the ideas of whoever wrote that book.
The Koran really doesn't have any ideas that need help. Humans have historically been pretty good at turning little girls into chattle and torturing people for gold. Are you really worried that there could be a day where those ideas are stifled?
In this context, I was mainly referring to book burning in general; not specifically the Koran. In my mind, they are done only as a tool for hatred. But, fair point, I haven't read it and if that's what it depicts then I don't think I'm missing out on anything.
There's a difference between burning one instance of one book as a protest and blacklisting hundreds of books and erasing all mentions of them and forcing everyone to not read them. One is declaring your dislike for something without affecting anyone, the other is erasing history. What you just did is a false equivalence.
I'm against burning books but if someone wants to, let them.
Books are for reading, not burning. But anyone should be allowed to burn any book they want to burn. It's nothing but ink on paper.
Why would anyone want a book about pedophilia and war?
Lolita is quite good, as is All Quiet on the Western Front. There are so many amazing books out there about awful things. And yet every religious text is just absolutely dreadful, horribly poorly written, incoherent plot and structure, no character development, and don't even get me started about the dialogue. And I'm really not kidding just make a point, they just straight up fucking suck. Idk how anyone can possibly read that shit. They should be burned for being horrible books, let alone the religious connotation.
Very well aware. Before I lost my faith I was planning on making Bible studies my career. There is so little well written or good about that book. Even in the original languages. The very few parts well done are only done well in context. The Sermon on the Mount isn't one of the best speeches of all time, it is just so much better than anything else in that book that if you read it cover to cover it is jaw dropping.
If I can't burn your holy book without terrorism there's a problem.
If I can't walk down the streets of Tel Aviv dressed like Hitler then there is a problem.
If I can't drive through a small town in 'Bama with a 'I VOTED FOR HILARY' bumper sticker then there is a problem.
If I can't go to a Portland Cider Bar wearing a Make America Great Again hat then there is a problem.
Jessie what the fuck are you talking about
Whataboutism
All around the world there is an issue with others violating some groups value system and then being met with violence. It's not an issue exclusive to Muslims.
I think burning a book is not comparable to dressing like hitler
Whataboutism
You keep putting yourself into the position where you GO somewhere. Sure, don't go to Israel if you're a Nazi.
Don't go to Alabama at all.
Don't go to Portland as a supporter of fascism if you don't want to be labeled as a fascist.
Don't go to a 1st world country if you want to cut off people's heads for burning books. Don't go to places if you don't support the principles they've carved out there. It's not that hard.
Don't burn holy books if you don't want sectarian violence.
But of course the book burners do want violence, that's the whole point.
Burning books doesn't cause any physical harm to anyone. Someone that would hurt other people for burning books doesn't deserve to live in a first world society. Whether it be the Bible, Quran, Torah, whatever. It doesn't even matter if they're baiting people into violence. They're just proving that these individuals have those insane violent tendencies inside of them.
Why would you want to burn their holy book?
Because I support free speech. That means protecting speech I disagree with. If we only defend the speech we like, we no longer have a democracy.
There's also a difference between burning one book and burning all examples of said book.
It's also a question of not applying your religion to others. Your religion does not allow you to burn your own book, but you can't impose that restriction on others, as long as it's a book that they own and are not burning someone else's book in the legal sense of ownership.
No, I mean what is the MOTIVE for the people doing the book burning? What do they hope to achieve in burning it?
The recent example in Sweden was of an Iraq refugee who was protesting his treatment by Muslims in Iraq. He claims his right to free speech was suppressed in Iraq because of Islam.
So it's the same reason everyone protests: to raise awareness of an issue. A more polarising figure, Rasmus Paludan, has also burned qurans. He did so to raise awareness of the growing violence in Muslim communities in Sweden. They proved him right.
Right. Because burning a fundamentalist's most holy book is the best way to promote a reasonable debate on the subject. It wasn't to goad the extremists at all? Because that's really what it looks like to me. It's like me raising the issue of fights outside pubs by punching someone's girlfriend outside a pub.
It's clear you don't believe it's a good way to use his free speech, but that's the beauty of free speech: he doesn't have to ask your permission first.
I don't think extremist-baiting is anything more than pointless self-aggrandizing. It's been obvious to the whole world that extremism is bad, ever since extremists flew planes into buildings in 2001. There is no point to make. We know. Stop pointlessly winding them up and boosting their cause. Do you think the extremists are personally hurt by it? No. They love it when someone does something like this. It shows they are right by proving how terrible the infidels are. They gain followers and the cycle of hatred churns on. Thanks for using your free speech to make the world a little bit shittier for everyone.
I think you have a well-reasoned position. He feels differently. Perhaps you need to come to terms with democracy, and how different people are permitted different opinions?
I support free speech but this guy clearly is using his speech to start violence and I don't have to pretend to be too dumb to notice that.
What do you mean "clearly... using his speech to start violence"? The only people starting violence are the people starting violence. There's no restriction on free speech for hurt feelings. If we only allowed people to practise free speech when it could never offend anyone else, we'd all be silent all the time. The entire premise of the concept is that we can express ourselves when it offends others. That's the whole point. Free speech arose as a central pillar of reason, science, and democracy during the Enlightenment when the Church would hang people for claiming the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe. Can you see why it's important that we allow people to dissent, disagree, and even antagonise one another?
A cute sentiment but not one based in reality.
I'm not allowed to visit Auschwitz dressed in Nazi uniform. I will have violence used against me.
I can't slowly drive around a small town in 'Bama with a gay pride flag and a I VOTED FOR HILARY bumper sticker. I will have violence used against me.
I can't enjoy a Cider at the Cider House wearing my Make America Great Again hat. I will have violence used against me.
In each instance I'm not hurting anyone, I'm just making those around me uncomfortable and anxious with my (to them) questionable views. Yet everyone can clearly see I'm looking for trouble, that the 'speech' has the unsaid addition of 'I want to hurt you when I'm powerful enough'.
It's easier to police the one person doing the antagonizing than it is to police the millions of people from the demographic they're targeting, it's inevitable that a few loons will take matters into their own hands.
These are false comparisons. This is an approved demonstration against Islamic violence(and such). But I guess we all forgot about Charlie H and all the rest. The man did not walk into a mosque on a Tuesday and light a book on fire.
Individuals are responsible for their own actions. Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few goes against the principles of justice and fairness. Attributing the actions of extremists to all Muslims is like blaming all Christians for the actions of a few extremists within that group. Extremism exists in all religions and ideologies.
No, this is a systemical issue with Islamic countries
Attributing a complex issue to an entire group of countries oversimplifies the situation. Just as with any region, Muslim-majority countries are diverse, each with its unique political, cultural, and historical context.
Blaming all Muslim countries for a problem oversimplifies the factors contributing to the situation. It's important to address specific issues within individual countries rather than making blanket generalizations about an entire religion or group of nations.
No, there's a red line of true harsh oppression going on in Islamic countries in general. This is what is being protested
I understand your concern about instances of oppression in some Islamic countries. It's important to address human rights violations and support efforts to create positive change.
However, it's crucial to remember that oppression can occur in any society, regardless of religious affiliation. Rather than attributing these issues to an entire religion or region, we should focus on advocating for human rights, raising awareness, and supporting efforts that promote justice and equality for all.
Painting an entire group with a broad brush doesn't help us understand the complexities of these situations or work toward meaningful solutions.
It's not*** painting, it's being against a specific culture and pretending it doesn't exist makes it worse
Yeah but if you insult the mob you can't be all surprised if they try to kill you. Free speech protects you from the government. We live in a world were everyone doesn't recognize the same rules law and order.
I look at this the same way as a white guy singing a bunch of rap songs using the n-word as emphatically as possible then posting it on youtube. Sure you have the right to say it but that's not going to stop you from getting your ass beat
Yes, I can be surprised. There's no free speech if people can't argue against regimes, wrongdoings, women being treated unequal, slavery, etc. That is the problem exactly. Also the same false comparison
So you're using examples where Free Speech has failed as an argument against Free Speech? Because you SHOULD be allowed to do the things named in your examples. That's the ideal, were not there yet but that's not a justification to stop the journey.
There you go again with weak arguments that don't compare to this.
Let's try a different track: I'm asking you to to go to all of those places and do all of those actions. It'll be more productive than either (good-faith) getting the conversation distracted responding to explain why those aren't good points or (bad-faith) derailing things just for the fun of being contrarian.
How doesn't it compare?
This is an individual who hates Muslims, doesn't want them in his country. He thinks they are dangerous, so he will prove they are dangerous by antagonizing them in the hope that a few hot heads will take the bait. Then he can say 'look see, all Muslims are violent and we must remove them from our country'.
Just like the guy in the MAGA hat can then say 'Look at how violent the Portlanders are', just like the guy with the Hilary bumper sticker car can then say 'Look at how violent these rural bumpkins are. It's active provocation, not a protest.
Oh yes he is an asshole. As much as I despise religion I would never lower myself to the level of defacing a book. He is also an asshole with rights, rights being threatened by much worse assholes.
Burning books isn't promoting free speech. It's literally the opposite. It's sending the message that we don't accept your ideas. That's why the Nazis did it.
Of course it's free speech. Burning the American flag is free speech. Shitting on a picture of Donald Trump is free speech. Burning Bibles is free speech. All of these happen frequently.
Sure, you're allowed to do it because you have free speech. But don't say that you're promoting the freedom of speech because you're doing it. Book burning is an act that stifles the ideas of whoever wrote that book.
More on topic, the two groups in question are both extremist groups that are opposed to the existence of the other. This isn't about speech, this is about inciting violence.
Against violence committed to those not following Islam
Moving those goal posts pretty quickly....
The Koran really doesn't have any ideas that need help. Humans have historically been pretty good at turning little girls into chattle and torturing people for gold. Are you really worried that there could be a day where those ideas are stifled?
In this context, I was mainly referring to book burning in general; not specifically the Koran. In my mind, they are done only as a tool for hatred. But, fair point, I haven't read it and if that's what it depicts then I don't think I'm missing out on anything.
There's a difference between burning one instance of one book as a protest and blacklisting hundreds of books and erasing all mentions of them and forcing everyone to not read them. One is declaring your dislike for something without affecting anyone, the other is erasing history. What you just did is a false equivalence.
I'm against burning books but if someone wants to, let them.
Books are for reading, not burning. But anyone should be allowed to burn any book they want to burn. It's nothing but ink on paper.
Why would anyone want a book about pedophilia and war?
Lolita is quite good, as is All Quiet on the Western Front. There are so many amazing books out there about awful things. And yet every religious text is just absolutely dreadful, horribly poorly written, incoherent plot and structure, no character development, and don't even get me started about the dialogue. And I'm really not kidding just make a point, they just straight up fucking suck. Idk how anyone can possibly read that shit. They should be burned for being horrible books, let alone the religious connotation.
Very well aware. Before I lost my faith I was planning on making Bible studies my career. There is so little well written or good about that book. Even in the original languages. The very few parts well done are only done well in context. The Sermon on the Mount isn't one of the best speeches of all time, it is just so much better than anything else in that book that if you read it cover to cover it is jaw dropping.