Why is there a stigmatism against criticizing Islam the same way people criticize Catholicism, Christianity...

#notallcriticsofislam

How is "lets not let muslims into our country" equivalent to "kill all muslims"?

You're making the exact same generalization that you're trying to criticize you fucking hypocrite

I'm just saying when you debate with them it tends to end up with them saying that. The same way Trump voters always come at as massive racists in hiding.

Literal nazis wanting to ban a group by calling them nazis is a bit weird imho

>/pol/ is real life

Meanwhile Muslims are actually killing Christians on the streets of Europe.

So by your logic, its totally fine to criticize Islam since the West has been victims of violent attacks done by muslims for literal centuries

...or do we want to pretend that doesnt exist?

Likely atheists to be honest

Again
>/pol/ is real life

Damn you're intelligent

Really swayed my worldview

Holy shit I'm on your team now!! I'm totally #ReadyForHillary

>/pol/ is one person
Every time

Who are you quoting?

I'm not even European or American, but every internet debate about Muslims results in someone saying they need to die

You are actually retarded, and I wouldn't be surprised if you've hashtagged notallmuslims on Twitter

You
>nazis
Not everyone on /pol/ is a nazi
>ban muslims
Not everyone on /pol/ wants to ban muslims
>calls them nazis
Not everyone on /pol/ calls muslims nazis

>Just wondering why people are so quick to use the Westboro Baptist Church as an example of the problems with Christianity

To continue and expand on , that's because once it's determined that the criticism is coming from outside the Muslim world, it's assumed there's some political agenda at play, which triggers people of the opposite political agenda and we fall into an endless signaling feedback loop between people who are generally more concerned through criticizing each other (one indirectly through attacking Islam and another indirectly through defending Islam) than they are with Islam itself.

I don't see how what you just said has anything to do with the logic of my post, besides providing a nice example of the above which will invariably attract the counter response and politicized debate about the West victimizing the Islamic World in turn for no real gain or resolution.

>baah don't say mean things about my precious little muslims you big meanie!!

Maybe people do this because they're mad at Muslims for a good fucking reason?

And look at that, even before I could finish the post, right on cue:

>internet debate

and...

there...

we........

go................

you said if a group has been attacked and victimized alot then its ok for them to criticize those who attacked them

thus, westerners are allowed to criticize islam since they've attacked europeans/the west for centuries

>you said if a group has been attacked and victimized alot then its ok for them to criticize those who attacked them
I said no such thing. What I said was that criticism is not considered earnest, agenda-free, or virtuous if it's directed against an outgroup and not limited to within your own house. The history of relations between two different groups is irrelevant to that point.

luckily im not concerned with virtue signalling so i dont care if all the cool kids on twitter think im earnest or not

Because a lot of criticism of Islam comes from the far-right whose arguments are basically based on xenophobia and Muslims being "subhuman". There are valid criticisms of Islam, but the far-right memers have ruined it for everyone else.

The anti-Islam crowd is dominated by those who call for mass murder of Muslims.

Trump supporters and the alt-right like to say this because they think it means they're enlightened, but they still implicitly associate Muslims with brown people. They're been known to attack non-Muslim arabs, thinking they're Muslims.

It's not, but when talking about America, banning people on the basis of their religion is a violation of first amendment principles.

>/pol/ isn't a circlejerk
>#NotAll/Pol/

It's not a good reason, unless you think irrational emotional reactions qualify as good reasons. There is no benefit to blaming Muslims in general for Islamic terrorism, as they themselves are often the victims of it.

>im not concerned with virtue signalling
Then why do you do it so much?

More and more people are becoming sick of that dynamic and I wouldn't expect it to survive for much longer.

That's good for you and all, but it is what it is.

>whines about how scared people lash out in anger verbally
>meanwhile Muslims are mowing down people by the hundreds
Nice cuckshed you got there

Try arguing with them, you'll come to the same conclusion.
Such as this guy, justifying the deaths of 1.5billion.
Where else other than the internet do you get into debates about muslims

Maybe, or maybe not. It's the dynamic all the same at this point in time.

oh shit ur totally right!! as an anonymous poster i am totally trying to build le epik street cred with my liberal homeboys

>banning people on the basis of their religion is a violation of first amendment principles.

No its not

The first amendment applies to citizens. It is 100% constitutional to not allow muslims to immigrate here

>Where else other than the internet do you get into debates about muslims

You actually get good critical debates about Islamic history and theology in good Islamic studies college departments.

>Where else other than the internet do you get into debates about muslims

university, work

>They're been known to attack non-Muslim arabs, thinking they're Muslims.
Meanwhile Bernie sanders, on live TV assumed a brown person was Muslim, when he was Hindu

>by the hundreds
Over what time frame? Do you think white people should be killed because they've killed people by the millions?

And I fail to see how a genocide of Muslims (most of whom are innocent), is an appropriate response. Do you think if a white supremacist kills some black people, that's justification to arrest everyone who uses racial slurs online?

>implying virtue signalling is something only leftists care about
>ACTUALLY admitting that right-wingers aren't virtuous
wew lad

Nice #notall/pol/tards

As a libertarian atheist brown motherfucker from the third world: islam's core of ideas is harmful, in the way it developed in relation to political power and in the radicalization that now easily occurs due to the west's lack of interest in actually curtailing these groups.

Tbh, Ataturk was right. Secularization is the only salvation for them, even if it's forced and we have to end every single extremist group with troops on the ground.

That's why I said PRINCIPLES. It's not required by Constitutional law, but if you get to the point of using that argument, you're following the word, not the spirit of the Constitution.

>implying there is an objective list of virtues that should be exercised

yikes..........

There's nothing wrong with making assumptions based on statistical data. There is something wrong with unprovoked attacks on people based on those assumptions, however.

Ex-libertarian* should have said that the recent events shook me into wanting State intervention as said in my own post.
Still hard to break the identifier, but yeah it's pretty clear I'm no longer fitting that bill.

Still, fuck it.

Over literally a year friend. And I didn't say that Muslims should be killed, rather that it's stupid to whine about how people are reacting to an active problem which the government doesn't do anything about, instead of the fucking problem itself

>implying virtue signalling somehow magically means "only virtues leftists believe in" because I say so

the word of the constitution was written very meticulously

in the 1700/first part of the 1800's it was illegal to allow non-whites to immigrate to the US

>implying any virtues exist whatsoever

.........cringe..............................

The government is doing something about it, the problem is it's difficult to do so without violating civil rights. If you want to be 100% sure of never having to face violence in your life, go live by yourself in a bomb shelter with 50 foot thick walls 800 feet underground.

NotAllMuslims is literally correct though. Not all Muslims, not even most, are terrorists.

Even if we give ISIS the generous estimate of 50,000 members, there's 1.6 billion Muslims, making them less than 0.0000031249999999999997% of Muslims.

You might say theres a lot more who support ISIS without joining them and you're correct but studies show even then the vast majority are against ISIS and what they stand for.

Then remember who the people actually fighting against ISIS actually are. Muslims. Not Westerners, not Jews, Some Christians, but most Muslims.

what you said is false and intellectually dishonest

Apolitical agnostic brown guy from the third world here, I see the issue being a problem of several anti-Western Liberal and anti-Colonial ideals becoming married to and retroactively justified through Islamic revivalist doctrine.

>what you said is false and intellectually dishonest
It's factually correct and you can't prove otherwise.

>b-but banning Muslims from the country isn't racist guys
:^)

It fucking isn't, the French PM literally told his people that they should get used to the violence. Rotherham police did nothing for fear of being accused as racist. Cologne happened and the mayor told women to not stay out late at night. Yet people like you stick their heads in the sand and calmly wait for the butcher to come

Not an argument

not an argument

Victim-oppressor mentality. Some groups see false power structures and want to help the "oppressed".

As for anyone claiming Islam isn't shush-shush problem, fuck off. I live in Europe and you can get into some hot shit if you speak ill about Islam.

>the French PM literally told his people that they should get used to the violence
[citation needed]

>Yet people like you stick their heads in the sand and calmly wait for the butcher to come
Are these posts procedurally generated?

muslims arent a race and i never said it wasnt racist

It's not just Muslims who are terrorists, it's Muslims who are OK with stoning adulterers, killing apostates, treating women as stock to be traded and are for throwing gays off of buildings

>I live in Europe and you can get into some hot shit if you speak ill about Islam.
Plenty of people who """""live in Europe""""" say the opposite. Why, specifically, should we trust you over them?

>Westboro Baptists

A group that literally never murdered or hurt anyone and what they're doing is just the IRL version of shitposting.

vs

>Muslims

A group that has commits a terrorist attack killing dozens of people literally every other week.

dont forget that Christians are total meanie heads who won't bake cakes for gay people

>i never said it wasnt racist
So then you admit that although Muslims are not a race, banning them from the country is a racist action?

You call that an argument?
This is an argument

I see you've played Arguey Stefany before

This person for example is clearly an American and doesn't know jack shit about the situation in Europe.

>The anti-Islam crowd is dominated by those who call for mass murder of Muslims.
Is such a load of bullshit, and especially ironic since if someone said the same about Islam he'd be screaming "notallmuslims!! where is da proof!!"

>comparing a tiny minority of Christians to the entire Muslim faith
>implying that no Christian has ever committed religiously motivated violence
Literal meme-tier argument

nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/07/15/can-we-just-live-with-terrorism
Go suck some immigrant cock weakling

Banning them from the country is an action that protects the national security

If you want to view it as racist because there happen to be a large population of arabs that are muslim then that's fine but I'd rather protect the security of the country than worrying about being racist

The reality of that is that its people from backwards undeveloped countries who are okay with those things. It's perfectly possible to be muslim and not okay with those as most in the west are and much of the islamic youth in muslim countries are. I know its an anecdote, but from personal experience of living in those countries, the youth and the old clash so much especially about Islam, who to the youth it is less important. And i know most ISIS members are youth but they're essentially the Islamic version of angry /pol/ kids.

>muslims commit a bunch of terrorist attacks and violent crimes
>b-b-but this one christian guy did this one attack this one time
Your argument is also meme tier

Yeah the media double standards is pretty weird.

>Christians refuse to bake a cake
>RELIGION IS CANCER, STOP SHOVING YOUR CHRISTIANITY DOWN OUR THROATS!

>Muslims literally M U R D E R gay people
>AN ACTION OF A FEW DOESN'T REPRESENT THE ENTIRE RELIGION, YOU BIGOT!

>Is such a load of bullshit, and especially ironic since if someone said the same about Islam he'd be screaming "notallmuslims!! where is da proof!!"
The proof is from what I've seen online. Except in leftist communities, you literally can't criticize Islam without someone taking it to the point of calling for mass murder, or some tinfoiler claiming that Obama introduced Common Core as a "lite" form of Islam

I haven't spent enough time in Islamic communities to know their attitudes towards violence in general, but with regards to ISIS, even RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS think ISIS is too extreme, never mind what moderate Muslims think of them

The difference, you troglodyte, is that /pol/ is either too cowardly or too smart to act on their weeb site fantasies, unlike muslims

Because it goes against the strategic interests of the West to demonize Islam. The least painful way to defeat radical Islam is to get moderate Muslims to be on your side and an active participant in the global war on terror.

Demonizing Islam leads to radicalization of otherwise normal people who now perceive that the world is against them. The implementation of the GWOT has actually made the world less safe, so logic combined with our operational experience dictates that an even harsher response to terror will cause even more terrorism.

Basically, Trumpists and GOPfags are fucking the country up if they try their Waffen-SS/Soviet Army strategy.

>Why, specifically, should we trust you over them?
Because I can has it a guess you're talking to Europeans who already agree with you and give an extremely distorted view on how things actually are. Why are "live in Europe" in quotations, you wan't me to go dig up my passport? If you publicly criticize Islam and are at all noteworthy you will be labeled as far right, and will probably get a lawsuit thrown at you. Possibly face violence from antifa.

You will be thrown to the far-right bracket because the political situation in Europe is so black and white atm.

LOL

That strategy has been proven totally ineffective

>dont say mean words about your enemy or they win
>dont kill ur enemy or they win

fucking epic dude

NotAllNazis is also correct.
That didn't stop us from firebombing them into oblivion.

>bush in control
>Muslims demonized like nowhere else post 9/11
>no attacks
>Obama in control
>refuses to say radical Islam
>largest terrorist attack since 9/11
Thanks obama

>The anti-Islam crowd is dominated by those who call for mass murder of Muslims.

Literally asspull: the argument. We want them to stop coming to our countries, not to literally murder them all.

>moderate muslims
Are still very much too religious for most European countries.

You literally used the fact that there is historical precedent for banning non-whites (a RACIAL category) from immigrating to argue that banning Muslims is constitutional. That's a precedent for racial discrimination, NOT a precedent for banning people on the basis of religion. And the fact that you used the argument demonstrates that you implicitly associate Muslims with non-whites.

The vast majority of violent crime is committed by men. Would you argue that forbidding males from entering the country "isn't sexist" since it protects national security?

If you want to make an actual argument, point out the relative percentages of Christians vs Muslims that kill people or commit terrorism.

The issue isn't that the Christians refuse to bake a cake, it's that they argued that they legally have a right to discriminate against gays due to their religion. Whereas people aren't claiming that Muslims have a right to kill due to their religion.

Well essentially you have anti-imperialism/colonialism and marxist (or even nationalistic) doctrine married to islamic extremism, then you an add the different cultural and political development that makes islam a nice fit for the mix to occur, add in a couple recent conflicts as well as one big intervention (creation of Israel), maybe you can even add in a certain historical revisionism that is tied to the doctrines mentioned before... i mean there is a bunch of shit but it all adds up to: the historical development was just right to create a cocktail that shouts "Allahu Akbar" before exploding in flames.

>moderate muslims

The best meme of them all

You can't have a civilization without men. You can't have civilization with muslims.

It is perfectly constitutional to ban muslims from entering the country as its the President's right and duty to prevent foreign adversaries from entering the nation

Sure lad, but the retrograde practices and beliefs are in the majority.

Not everyone in society needs to practice something, it (and things that lead to it) being accepted is enough.

Don't recall the majority of the nazis trying to stop other nazis and cooperating with the allies.

Are you niggers retarded? Compare the level of terrorist activity pre-9/11 and post-9/11. The destabilization of the Middle East thanks to the invasion of Iraq has been a total shitshow that has nothing to do with Obama's policies. Iraq was a fucking breeding ground for all of the major terrorist groups operating in the area today. ISIS, al-Nusra, etc. all trace their lineage directly to Iraqi insurgent groups.

The only problem with Obama is that he's following the party line where you can't directly support dictators. So instead of helping Assad fight off ISIS and various other fags, we got into a proxy war with Russia over being idealistic retards.

Oklahoma Bombing, Anders Brievik, etc

> they argued that they legally have a right to discriminate against gays due to their religion

They do though. In almost every other religious case, the courts always side with the religious institution in protecting their first amendment rights.

Not all Nazis is a popular belief, not many people think the entire population of Germany during WW2 were Jew murdering maniacs.

>Two attacks
>One was 20 years ago
>Both from lone wolves

Impressive, it's almost like western culture just doesn't breed a lot of those practices.