h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

But I feel such a tremendous need to patronise you! And you make it so easy.

Ah well, at least following your recent Googling you now know all about the 1204 sacking, so you might understand how foolish it is to portray the Crusades as being about the recapture of Muslim-occupied lands. (and one of them was against the Cathars of Southern France, another against the Bogomils, etc. etc.)

(not that the Crusades are particularly relevant to the current wave of uninformed, ignorant, knee-jerk bigotry that is currently being spewed by some of the more empty-headed of my fellow citizens).

(anyway...don't you worry your pretty little head about it).

And as for dhimmi (I didn't know it was called that. Thank you)...it is relevant how?

As far as I can see, we're nowhere near being under Isalmic rule. Yes, a few would like to see it, and I oppose them every bit as much as I oppose the involvement of any religion in government (disestablish the church; kick the bishops out of parliament; ban acts of religious worship in schools;...etc. etc)

You're making an obvious mistake. The views of some Muslims are wrond. Some Muslims are very bad people. But to thus conclude that *all* Muslims are bad and would, at the drop of a hat, take over the country and make everyone convert to Islam is...well, if it weren't so dangerously deranged I'd say 'laughable'.

Ed,

You are becoming insufferably condescending.

I can visualise you sitting at your keyboard, smirking as you air your erudition, and use your by now boorish technique of debate by ridicule.

You studiously ignore points made against you and instead attack the weak points that others post, not kindly or gently but with sarcasm and unpleasantness.

Are you never troubled by humility?

Novo

Kea,
the Thin White Line was penned by a Mr Malik in his documentary.
His described in his example where there is a large amount of immigration into city centres and gradually shops, etc change and eventually churches close and are taken over as mosques, etc. Eventualy as there are less and less white people they see there culture disapear and move away from city centre, the line slowly moves away from city centre and a ghetto grows in vacume.
He also gave figures of racist attacks and said that while racist attacks by white people are falling and racist attacks by black people remain steady, racist attacks by Asians are rising.
He also interviewed black and asian people on their views of each other, to be honest their r.acist views of each other were the worst I have heard for a long time. Far worse than I have heard from any group for a long time, I simply cannot believe that they said it opennly on camera.
It is somewhat interesting that it there has been more and more black/asian MPs and commentators on TV finally admiting that white people have genuine concerns about their culture disappearing, they also have finally started to admit that multiculturism is actually creating divisions as Diane Abbot, a black Labour MP said. Her example of giving money and special assistance to ethnic minority groups in deprived areas while doing nothing for the white deprived people in the area has caused resentment, she said this is a good example of where multiculturism has created barriers.
Even the Labour party has finally started to drop their slurs of racism if someone dares to say that the asylum system is open to abuse, etc. It was a good way of stifling critism but even thet knew they couldn't get away with it forever!
The middle road is definitly the best way to go, extremes on both the left and right are not helpful. Both the "ship them all home" or "nothing is wrong in paradise" rose tinted stances are not the way to go. To think that white people are more racist that black or asian people is foolish, the nastiest pieces of racism I have heard lately have not involved white people.

Edward,
you are totally losing your arguement when you become unpleasant. It is counter productive.

Some of us are a bit more old-fashioned and choose to use big bundles of paper bound together and called books. There's a whole world of information that isn't on the net. I'd recommend 2 books for you - "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades" and "The Truth about Muhammed", both by Robert Spencer. He must be doing something right 'cos the Muslims want him dead.

I've never suggested all Muslims are bad. But the problem is, one finds it so hard to differentiate.

Remember the theme of this thread, the veil? The visible two-fingured salute? How can you debate with an entire group who refuse to accept criticism? How can you engage with a culture that says Muslims are superior to non-Muslims? How can you promote integration when one community doesn't want to integrate?

Muslims were readily accepted into Britain from the outset. Where is the institutional racism?

Are there laws specifically discriminating against Muslims? No.
Are there policies specifically discriminating against Muslims? No.
Are there policies specifically discriminating against whites? Yes.

If Kea is correct and racism requires institutional backing, there is no racism in the UK against minorities.

In Muslim countries, do we see freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of dress, freedom of assembly, equal application of laws, equal opportunities etc etc ? In many cases no. So what changes are we expected to make to our society to make it more like their ideal? In truth, Muslims want us to forego freedoms to make them feel happy.

BTW, I will continue to tar all Muslims with the same brush right up to the point where a Muslim Body unequivocally states that ALL suicide bombers and ALL terrorists will go to hell. By not disassociating themselves from extremists, Muslims tacitly support them. Muslims choose to be part of a brotherhood when it suits them, so I merely accede to their wishes by treating them as such.

<<"you would see that the Crusades were in self-defence, seeking to reclaim land taken in conquest by Muslims.">>

Urban II said it, so it must be true. Self-defense in this case means reconquering lands taken from the Roman Empire (some of them via the Persians) several centuries before.

>>you are totally losing your arguement when you become unpleasant. It is counter productive.

I know. But I've given up on that and my intention is to be an annoying troll.

As for a) smirking at my erudition and b) not answering points...Oh, I do SO apologise if, when discussing the YouGov survey I was so crass as to attempt to inject some knowledge into the debate. Criticising someone for supplying information is a bizarre debating tactic.


(For others reading who might be on my side if only it weren't for my disgraceful behaviour...I dunno...there comes a time when one has to set up the barricades. You're never going to convince the people, but at least let them know that there's some forceful opposition to their crap.)

Anyway, lets get to the definition of racism. I disagree with the definitions that have been put forward so far. SWL's was broadened to the extent of uselessness. Kea, yours seems rather adjusted to fit your own underdog-favouring agenda (not trying to be insulting, we all have one).

I'd like to keep it simple. Most narrowly, racism is an idealogy that believes humans are divided into groups by a set of physical characteristics (usually skin colour), and that some groups are superior to others. More loosely, it involves a perhaps less offensive but still rather silly stereotyping without implications of superiority. The clever Pakistani becoming a Doctor, for example.

What racism is not, is all this bollucks about culture. That can still be unpleasant admittedly.

SWL, I'd like to ask again, how can a culture disappear? Its something that's almost entirely in your head, how can someone take it away?

Meanwhile

>>Remember the theme of this thread, the veil? The visible two-fingured salute?

Here's an invisble one for you, matey. I'm directing it at my screen right now.

I think Ed needs his afternoon nap. Like the people under discussion, he retreats from debate into insult and childish slurs.

How can a culture disappear Bouncy? Ask the Incas or the Mayans. Look at how desperately islanders in the West of Scotland cling to their language and traditions. Rather than asking how a culture disappears, is it not more apt to ask how is a culture defined and maintained?

OK. I'm going to blame SWL for all the bad things Scottish people have done, and all the bad things Christians have done, until he's written a nice long post distancing himself from them and their actions.

You can start at the crusades, and finish with the BNP.

While he's doing that, I'd like to ask how many people on this thread have actually seen someone in a full veil recently? I haven't seen one for at least ten years, and since then I've lived in Tooting, Brixton and Brussels, all of which have large Muslim populations.

I think the veil is a total red herring.

sprout

Incidentally SWL, if I'm understanding her right, what Kea often means by institutional racism is not necessarily an active discrimination, but rather that systems are set up to be convenient to those whose ancestors were more influential.

Personally I don't see that as racism at all, but I also don't see why things should have to stay a certain way because someone's ancestors did it that way.

I will agree with you SWL, that there are certain things about Islamic culture that are pretty nasty. So, it seems to me to make sense to argue against the bad parts by providing reasons why they're bad and ways in which they can be better. Arguments about it being an invading culture strike me as a quick way to alienate people and thus prevent those reasons from being communicated. Moreover, it does seem to be tipping the playing field rather unfairly.

I'm not sure how to explain that last one to you properly, but here goes. Two people are born in the UK, one is some sort of radical alternative type, another is a carbon copy of one of their great-grandparents. What you seem to be saying is that the way of life of the traditional type is somehow more important, but you don't explain why.

Culture is maintained by people being interested in it, practicing it, caring about it. If people aren't and don't, then why is it worth maintaining?

I saw a lot of veils in Dewsbury last week.

BTW, no Scot has ever done anything in the slightest unpraiseworthy. Bad things are un-Scottish therefore anyone who does bad things cannot be a Scot. (If you can't beat them, join them )

Why should I need to write a post distancing myself from Christians or the BNP? I'm a member of neither.

The Mayans disappeared, yes. The Incans were helped by Señor Pizarro.

I dunno about 'all this bollucks about culture.' The main problem with multiculturalism is when opinions clash. You can't expect a large, well-established majority to continually acquiesce without some resentment building up. Erm...

[I may have to clarify that later]

Actually the nearest town to me has a lot, so has the college in that town.
They are just so noticable, unlike the head scarf.

Bouncy - "it seems to me to make sense to argue against the bad parts by providing reasons why they're bad and ways in which they can be better."

I agree entirely. But Muslims cannot accept that anything passed on from the Koran or Ahadith is wrong and absolutely refuse to accept criticism of either. How can you tell someone that a part of their law is wrong when they believe they were told to do this by God?

Reasoned debate goes out the window with any religion as they are predicated upon the unreasonable.

Take compulsion. The Koran specifically states that there is no compulsion in Islam. Nobody can be forced to be Muslim against his will. But if a Muslim tries to leave, the Koran says they become apostate and subject to the death penalty. How can you reason with such a mentality?

Bouncy: >Culture is maintained by people being interested in it, practicing it, caring about it. If people aren't and don't, then why is it worth maintaining?<

That makes culture seem like something you have to be actively involved in. I've always preferred the definition given to me by one of my Geography lecturers: "Culture is what we do round here"

This post has been removed.