(Radical) Islam's Incompatibility with Democracy and Western Ideals

[beachbum111111]

yeah i define "western ideals" as the ideological pieces that actually make up what we consider to be western society. i don't think any of those three things are a bad thing (i'm taking hate speech as people calling out hate speech, which i guess probably would just be PC anyway) in reasonable moderation, democracy is most effective when all individuals are considered equally valuable and that's something that all of those should help accomplish in theory.

When I talk about hate speech laws I'm talking about how my government tries to censor people who say "mean" things and whatnot. Some countries in Europe are like this as well where you can actually get charged for criticizing refugees and speaking positively of the holocaust, while I definitely don't agree with the ladder it should be their right to express their opinion and it's up to others to prove them wrong with civil discourse and rational arguments.

[Ad Bot]

[otto-san]

When I talk about hate speech laws I'm talking about how my government tries to censor people who say "mean" things and whatnot. Some countries in Europe are like this as well where you can actually get charged for criticizing refugees and speaking positively of the holocaust, while I definitely don't agree with the ladder it should be their right to express their opinion and it's up to others to prove them wrong with civil discourse and rational arguments.

oh yeah that's total PooPoo nonsense, even speech that might be offensive should be protected by the highest law. otherwise, if government is defining what kind of speech is legally offensive, you can have some pretty insane restrictions of free expression

[WaterOre]

When I talk about hate speech laws I'm talking about how my government tries to censor people who say "mean" things and whatnot. Some countries in Europe are like this as well where you can actually get charged for criticizing refugees and... it should be their right to express their opinion and it's up to others to prove them wrong with civil discourse and rational arguments.

I'll agree with this.

speaking positively of the holocaust, while I definitely don't agree with the ladder

This, however, is where total freedom of speech breaks down. Speaking positively of and rallying behind national socialist ideals, thanks to the nature of that group, is actively harmful to a group of people. It's similar to praising CIA; while it's technically allowed under total freedom of speech, it allows a harmful ideology to spread.

Freedom of speech is an atrociously difficult issue to do 100% well. While it's better to err on the side of speech anarchy than speech control, allowing radical and hateful ideologies to spread only hurts society.

[beachbum111111]

oh yeah that's total PooPoo nonsense, even speech that might be offensive should be protected by the highest law. otherwise, if government is defining what kind of speech is legally offensive, you can have some pretty insane restrictions of free expression

Yeah imo any country that has hate speech laws doesn't have freedom of speech period.

[McZealot]

Freedom of speech is an atrociously difficult issue to do 100% well. While it's better to err on the side of speech anarchy than speech control, allowing radical and hateful ideologies to spread only hurts society.

The freedom to believe and say whatever you want as long as you don't act upon it is a fundamental right of humanity and one of the founding principals of The United States. A lot of things harm society--that doesn't mean we need to stop them  at the cost of human rights.

I actually find myself agreeing with Beachbum, to a point:

Yeah imo any country that has hate speech laws doesn't have freedom of speech period.

I don't think people should be allowed to incite violence. For example "GO AND KILL BEACHBUM!" should not be protected under free speech. Nor should invasions of personal privacy, like "THIS IS BEACHBUM'S ADDRESS AND SS NUMBER!".

yeeaaahh... thats not how it works....

Actually, it is, in nearly every first-world nation.

[otto-san]

Freedom of speech is an atrociously difficult issue to do 100% well. While it's better to err on the side of speech anarchy than speech control, allowing radical and hateful ideologies to spread only hurts society.

yeah the only problem is actually defining what's really radical and hateful, and giving government that power is a bad idea. that's why federal obscenity laws and cases in the US have generally always followed the precedent of leaving the definition of "obscenity" to more or less local standards. imo it's better to criminalize bad actions than it is to criminalize bad ideas, because ideas can only be harmful in theory

[Foxscotch]

yeeaaahh... thats not how it works....

so let me get this straight you think christianity should control the US government

[otto-san]

so let me get this straight you think christianity should control the US government

i'm not too sure what he was saying, but i don't think that was it

[Clownfish]

so let me get this straight you think christianity should control the US government

go away foxs crotch he didn't even say that

[beachbum111111]

I actually find myself agreeing with Beachbum, to a point:I don't think people should be allowed to incite violence. For example "GO AND KILL BEACHBUM!" should not be protected under free speech. Nor should invasions of personal privacy, like "THIS IS BEACHBUM'S ADDRESS AND SS NUMBER!".

Inciting complete freedom of speech is a tricky issue with examples like yours. However I think the example you showed is more of a threat of an action, it's not what he says is the issue but more what he will do as a result of what he said. "I'm going to stab you" is the promise of an action, if the guy has no arms that his words aren't as big of a threat, if he had arms and was pointing a knife at you it would be more serious. Plus something like giving out an address, social security number, debit card number and the likes would more fall under thievery of property although that is all quite a slippery slope.

I hope what I said made some sort of sense.

[Juncoph]

so let me get this straight you think christianity should control the US government

wow that strawman

[Foxscotch]

i'm not too sure what he was saying, but i don't think that was it

I can't imagine him meaning anything else by it, except maybe a less exaggerated form of what I said

[otto-san]

I can't imagine him meaning anything else by it, except maybe a less exaggerated form of what I said

could just mean that having a fully secular state isn't necessarily possible/doesn't happen in practice

[Red Spy]

so let me get this straight you think christianity should control the US government

[Swat 3]

The way I see it, most Muslims who follow and enforce Sharia law would like it enforced where ever they go. I really doubt all Muslims believe this since most western Muslims aren't even orthodox. Comparable to a Christian who only goes to church on Christmas and easter day smh.

However, Islam is the only monotheistic religion that actively grasps into the lifestyles of everyday believers, second to Judaism imo. Because of this, groups have more control over a group of followers. If a radical ideology develops, it is easier to subjugate that follower base into following that ideology.

My Allah is best Allah. Why don't you guys follow Allah? Why don't you follow Sharia law? Of course these questions rarely cross the minds of most western Muslims, but there are still Muslims in the world who believe that their way of life > your way of life. In fact, we all think this. Why can't a sheep herder in the Middle East enjoy the same democratic ideals that I have? In same ways that thought is dangerous by itself (installing democratic governments, and we know what happens when the US does that). It becomes dangerous with Islam.

All by itself it is the same goddamn "problem" that we (the US) saw with the Irish and the Germans and other immigrants. The question is now is if we block their way in, are we actually helping ourselves?