Controversial General Political Discussion
- Thread starter AL sama
- Start date
- Tags #freepalestine are you having fun al? are you having van al? dei has never hurt anyone you jackass dei must go gaolang > your fav hi rej hi rejj hi rejjj is not paying tax sexist is van having fun al? life goal sister harem real madrid reloaded is innocent tax is the best thing ever happened to us trans rights = human rights trans women are not interested in any of you watch for haters weebs discussing politics lmao worst thread ever
I was directly targeted by the post of Blax. But nothing in my belief system was hurt. Is it antagonizing? Ofc. And he should be ready for the heat if downplay the beliefs of other, that's fair game. But is it outside of ethical limits? No. (or I missed something).
This would be outside of ethical limits:
"Islam is a religion of hate" > This would touch to something more than just religious belief and dehumanizes believers.
"You are stupid for not believing" > This would be out lines
My relationship with One Piece is far stronger than the relationship some religious people have with their own beliefs system, it educated me for decades, transformed me, and still inspires me. I feel the destruction of my "sensibility" everyday on this forum. Do I wish for these behaviors to be less hurtfull, yeah.. But do I want for it to be moderated and other people banned for that? No.
"Sensibility" is a fancy word to maintain religious institutions unchecked. Sensibility is meaningless. What counts is the contextual material elements and conditions of a critic. Does the critic creates a danger for someone? Does the critics participate in a racist or discriminatory rethoric? If that's the case then yeah, moderate the critics, if not, there is no reason to do that.
This would be outside of ethical limits:
"Islam is a religion of hate" > This would touch to something more than just religious belief and dehumanizes believers.
"You are stupid for not believing" > This would be out lines
My relationship with One Piece is far stronger than the relationship some religious people have with their own beliefs system, it educated me for decades, transformed me, and still inspires me. I feel the destruction of my "sensibility" everyday on this forum. Do I wish for these behaviors to be less hurtfull, yeah.. But do I want for it to be moderated and other people banned for that? No.
"Sensibility" is a fancy word to maintain religious institutions unchecked. Sensibility is meaningless. What counts is the contextual material elements and conditions of a critic. Does the critic creates a danger for someone? Does the critics participate in a racist or discriminatory rethoric? If that's the case then yeah, moderate the critics, if not, there is no reason to do that.
An ex envoy said it. It's absurd.
I think it's more to do with nationalism and politics to deflect from the real issues common citizens of Pakistan are facing - economic hardship and to hide their own shortcomings.
This particular statement stems from the fear that if US and Israel closes in through Iran and if US / Israel targets Pakistan's nuclear assets then by bringing India they are adding counter pressure to the scenario...a deterrence
I think it's more to do with nationalism and politics to deflect from the real issues common citizens of Pakistan are facing - economic hardship and to hide their own shortcomings.
This particular statement stems from the fear that if US and Israel closes in through Iran and if US / Israel targets Pakistan's nuclear assets then by bringing India they are adding counter pressure to the scenario...a deterrence
some religious people interpret all criticism as mocking their religion.
and im 100% with @Logiko on this, religions are not as special as people make them out to be. if i can mock RyoQ for his homophobic nonsense, i will and i should be able to mock for example the flat earth view of abrahamic religions.
and im 100% with @Logiko on this, religions are not as special as people make them out to be. if i can mock RyoQ for his homophobic nonsense, i will and i should be able to mock for example the flat earth view of abrahamic religions.
yeah except for outlier cases of people intentionally being extremely provocative, offense is taken, not given.
if me criticising a religion makes a religious person feel insulted, fuck em.
thats lowkey the same as logiko or trans-individuals being offended by people saying biological sex is real and there are 2 sexes.
if me criticising a religion makes a religious person feel insulted, fuck em.
thats lowkey the same as logiko or trans-individuals being offended by people saying biological sex is real and there are 2 sexes.
Well not really because in this case, the critic participates in a systemic oppression.
For exemple if I say in Europe, "Islam is the religion of hatred", "it's incompatible with western value and so on".. I will quit the "legit" criticizm realm and fall into the racist realm where the dehumanizing and essentialist critic of a religious belief system participate in the oppression of believers. as muslim in Europe are falling into a racialized category.
As you can see, I'm not against moderating all critics, but we have to take the ethical and material context into account. Me calling other fascist is not only ethical but is a defensive action in front of an oppressive power dynamic that needs to be balanced. So when I'm being censored (and that's the right word this time) for doing so by the moderation... then the moderation is taking a side : the oppressive one and ignores the ethical context of a critic.
This is the main problem of this kind of forum. People are not politicized enough.
For exemple if I say in Europe, "Islam is the religion of hatred", "it's incompatible with western value and so on".. I will quit the "legit" criticizm realm and fall into the racist realm where the dehumanizing and essentialist critic of a religious belief system participate in the oppression of believers. as muslim in Europe are falling into a racialized category.
As you can see, I'm not against moderating all critics, but we have to take the ethical and material context into account. Me calling other fascist is not only ethical but is a defensive action in front of an oppressive power dynamic that needs to be balanced. So when I'm being censored (and that's the right word this time) for doing so by the moderation... then the moderation is taking a side : the oppressive one and ignores the ethical context of a critic.
This is the main problem of this kind of forum. People are not politicized enough.
Yeah!
Just to add, Pakistan has India in the east and Afghanistan in the west.
Iran in the South West. Having Israel presence in Iran or through Iran, geopolitically would be a nightmare scenario.
And, as Israel - US are close allies And US and Gulf are close allies, so when you add your reasoning into the geopoltical scenario, things became more clear - why there's fear
Just to add, Pakistan has India in the east and Afghanistan in the west.
Iran in the South West. Having Israel presence in Iran or through Iran, geopolitically would be a nightmare scenario.
And, as Israel - US are close allies And US and Gulf are close allies, so when you add your reasoning into the geopoltical scenario, things became more clear - why there's fear
i agree to an extent, but the issue here is peoples inability to differentiate between the religion and its adherents. Islam at face falue is kind of incompatible with western values, but that doesnt mean muslims cant be integrated into western society, as that depends on their specific individual relationship with their religion and their interpretations of its contents.
but even liberal muslims i am friends with are against homosexual marriage for example. As are plenty christians tbh.
but even liberal muslims i am friends with are against homosexual marriage for example. As are plenty christians tbh.