Racism in Australia

texx1 · Nov 24, 2020

solarz said:
Yeah, good job repeating all the trigger words from the western media.

I recognized those are trigger words but they aptly describe the current situation in France. Hence, I am not going to apologize for using them.

solarz said:
Guess what, we have some very stark case studies right before us. China built re-education camps to de-radicalize extremists and at the same time passed legislations outlawing publications that insult other religions. Did China "appease" religious extremism, or "bow down" to fanatics? I don't think so.

China has a blanket legislation that imposes prior restraints over all publishing, which includes religious materials. Without state approval, you can't publish. Hence, publications like Charlie Hebdo could never have existed in the first place in China. I think the legislation was passed in 2001, long before the Kunming train station attack in 2014.

As for religious affair regulation, it was passed and published in 2004, in which article 7 expressly forbidding publishing materials that create conflicts between worshipers and non-worshipers (atheists), promote religious extremism, use religion to foster ethic disunity, discrimination of religious worshipers or non-worshipers . In other words, China didn't pass new laws after the rise of religious extremism in Xinjing and Tibet. It had them long before domestic terrorist attacks. The notion of appeasement and bowing down didn't apply to China. Still that didn't prevent the rise of religious extremism and terror attacks in China.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

涉及宗教内容的出版物，应当符合《出版管理条例》的规定，并不得含有下列内容：

(一)破坏信教公民与不信教公民和睦相处的；

(二)破坏不同宗教之间和睦以及宗教内部和睦的；

(三)歧视、侮辱信教公民或者不信教公民的；

(四)宣扬宗教极端主义的；

(五)违背宗教的独立自主自办原则的。

China made some progress in combating religious extremism in Xinjing and Tibet. However, the parallel society also exists in China. The followings originated from Chinese social media.

Muslim only seats

Muslim cashier counters

Muslim only showers. Remember religions are supposed to be forbidden in Chinese educational institutions.

solarz said:
The western narrative is a false dichotomy. Western politicians need an enemy in order to distract the population from the reality of their exploitation. The narrative you repeated above is designed to perpetuate this state of tension between Muslims and non-Muslims, to the ultimate benefit of the ruling class.

As a cynic I wholeheartedly agree with this. Divide and rule is an old controlling method for the elites and it's effective simply because it exploits the visible inequalities between groups.

plawolf · Nov 24, 2020

texx1 said:
People also draw cartoons and make fun of Jesus, the pope, Buddha. So far in the 21st century, I haven't heard anyone been killed for that. Religious extremism should be condemned and rooted out.

That’s a false comparison and strawman argument. It’s always the same stupid argument being repackaged to draw false equivalence and discredit minority views.

As with most instances of minority persecution, it’s as much about the underlying power dynamics as it is about the act itself.

When you are in a privileged group, it’s easy to shrug things off because you have never been discriminated and oppressed on that basis and so are not aware of the underlying and associated stigma of being ‘othered’.

I see religious massacres like Christchurch are forgotten so easily.

I doubt you would be so forgetful if a Muslim went into a church and killed a similar number of people. You also have all sorts of religiously motivated killings in America and the western world for perceived slights against Jesus, like homophobic mass shootings and attacks on abortion clinics, staff and women who use them. And also, let’s not forget the countless millions who have died to western bombs and bullets for offending western sensibilities in the 21st century. Just because you have the power and privilege to send in the special forces to do the killing for you when you get triggered does doesn’t make much difference to those who are killed.

It is also stupid and illogical to draw the line exclusively at the Muslim prohibition against depicting their prophet as if that is the only odd and stupid religious practice. I dare say many of the westerners loudly applauding offending Muslim sensibilities would be singing a very different tone if strictly secular laws were introduce to ban religious practices near to dear to their own hearts.

On the face of it, would anyone be against Laws banning Forced Genital Mutilation (Circumcision) or animal cruelty (Hala, Kosher) or homophobia/sexism (pretty much all mainstream ‘traditional’ religious teachings)? I could list these all day.

In addition, there is often an inverse relationship between religious violence and state capture. Basically the more influence a religion can exert on a state, and the more powerful the state in question, the less the religion needs to practice violence itself, since it could effectively outsource its wet work to government law enforcement and military when others offend their religious beliefs.

It is both arrogant and disingenuous to point to the impotent fury of the Muslims and laugh at how ‘superior’ your western religion is when you can just demand your governments to send in the troops when you are similarly triggered. And if, as the west’s powers decline and limit their ability to go on foreign military adventures with minimal risks and costs, you might just find your local western approved religious leaders start spewing more fire and brimstone and starting to advocate getting things done yourselves.

hashtagpls · Nov 24, 2020

plawolf said:
It is both arrogant and disingenuous to point to the impotent fury of the Muslims and laugh at how ‘superior’ your western religion is when you can just demand your governments to send in the troops when you are similarly triggered. And if, as the west’s powers decline and limit their ability to go on foreign military adventures with minimal risks and costs, you might just find your local western approved religious leaders start spewing more fire and brimstone and starting to advocate getting things done yourselves.

You see this already in the Anglo FVEYEs, the spasms of violence against those deemed as threats to their religion of white anglo supremacy: the muslims who threaten "Eurabia", the Chinese who outcompete white anglo controlled tech companies, and the Asians who threaten to "swamp australia".

The Five Eyes do practice a state religion: White Anglo Supremacism cum western chauvinism, and in that hierarchy of races, the anglos and nordics are considered apex with lesser "swarthy" europeans below them, with blurred lines between say Armenians and turks over being considered 'western'.

AssassinsMace · Nov 24, 2020

Let's face the fact that there will always be racism. If you live in a country where you're a minority, that's the risk. All you can do is defend yourself at the moment. That's the only justice you'll get. No need to convince a jury that are most likely going to part of the majority in the first place. When racist sees there's a risk to their own lives when they engage in racist activities, that's when they'll think twice about it. What do you have to lose when a racist wants to commit serious harm even kill you? There will be no kumbaya moment.

The victim culture was created so that the victimizer could control who's considered a victim. Do not believe it was created to help those that needed help the most. It's "the most victimized" that should get attention meaning only one victim at a time so that everyone else gets ignored hence why there's in-fighting among victims. It becomes a contest on who's more a victim and anger brews in those that think they're more victimized and getting the attention they think they deserve. Everyone is going after each other's throats except for the victimizers'. Going on just as planned... How long have they been giving attention to the world's victims because they care...? Fifty years? And interesting how when they demand only one at a time and everyone has to wait in line for their turn, they're still serving ticket number one after 50 years...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China played a major role in why the West even embraced human rights. WWII ended with the colonial powers being weak. The West feared someone could take advantage like communism. The Soviet Union tried to use it against the West but the problem was Russia was a colonial power also. They weren't a good example for leading a revolution against colonialism. Then the Chinese Communist Revolution of 1949 happened. The first colony to kick out Western colonialists. The West feared it could happen again and China funneled arms and money around the world to make it happen. A country didn't even need to be communist to get China's aid. That's why the West saw China as a far greater threat than the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The West had to counter or lose it all. That's when on a turn of a dime they decolonized and installed a puppet dictator to make it look they were out and embraced human rights to make it look like they cared contrary to just the day before. Why do they make China out to be the antithesis of human rights today? Because China is the only country that can gang up the world against the West. They want to make sure the world distrusts China so nothing like that could happen.

It's ironic because today in the US there are Blacks and Latinos that look at Asians doing nothing but riding off their backs when it comes to civil rights. Everyone hates each other because that's how it was designed. Because of George Floyd there's been talk about how white supremacy has to end. They will not be stopping white supremacy because they're all trying to find a way where whites will accept them meaning being able to live in a white man's world peacefully. The Chinese again are the only ones that can bring a true end to white supremacy and it will be done not through violence. It will come about in the most peaceful legal way possible and that's beating them in competition not sucking up and begging to be accepted by them. This is where even liberals will show their true colors and want to save white supremacy. How will they be able to dictate to the world what's important if they don't have the power to force it on everyone. Blacks and Latinos need them. That's what happens when your culture has been destroyed and replaced with Western values. They see a place for them in Western culture where they have advantages because they embrace and live by Western values. They have no place in someone else's culture.

Despite how there can only be one victim at a time, guess who's getting attention now where everyone has to be mindful and respectful of what "they" want? Trans people. JK Rowling, John Cleese, Gina Carano, Rosario Dawson have all been accused of public comments that offend trans people and the world has to stop to address it. When Bruce Jenner became Caitlyn Jenner the world was being corrected when anyone would call her a him. A news story even came out charging China was persecuting their transsexuals and China had to address it immediately. If you've notice all the people who get to skip ahead in line while everyone else has to wait longer are causes headed by whites. Just like when white little girls get kidnapped, they get all the attention while non-white children who get kidnapped get zero attention. Or one would think if a serial rapist was running around there would be a lot of attention given to it. Not if the victims were Asian women and the rapist wasn't an Asian man. That's what happened in liberal women rights minded UC Berkeley a few years back. You didn't see women's rights groups come out nor were there rallies in support of the victims and no local politicians and police there to promise to catch the rapist. No different from forty years before when UC Berkeley student Bibi Lee was found murdered and her body dumped on a wooded part of the campus. Turns out her boyfriend killed her and for days after went back to have sex with her dead body. People actually protested to defend him because he was a young white male with a whole future ahead of him and it shouldn't be thrown away over it.

Stopping racism isn't going to happen with these people in charge.

texx1 · Nov 24, 2020

plawolf said:
That’s a false comparison and strawman argument. It’s always the same stupid argument being repackaged to draw false equivalence and discredit minority views.

As with most instances of minority persecution, it’s as much about the underlying power dynamics as it is about the act itself.

When you are in a privileged group, it’s easy to shrug things off because you have never been discriminated and oppressed on that basis and so are not aware of the underlying and associated stigma of being ‘othered’.

I see religious massacres like Christchurch are forgotten so easily. I doubt you would be so forgetful if a Muslim went into a church and killed a similar number of people. You also have all sorts of religiously motivated killings in America and the western world for perceived slights against Jesus, like homophobic mass shootings and attacks on abortion clinics, staff and women who use them. And also, let’s not forget the countless millions who have died to western bombs and bullets for offending western sensibilities in the 21st century. Just because you have the power and privilege to send in the special forces to do the killing for you when you get triggered does doesn’t make much difference to those who are killed.

It is also stupid and illogical to draw the line exclusively at the Muslim prohibition against depicting their prophet as if that is the only odd and stupid religious practice. I dare say many of the westerners loudly applauding offending Muslim sensibilities would be singing a very different tone if strictly secular laws were introduce to ban religious practices near to dear to their own hearts.

On the face of it, would anyone be against Laws banning Forced Genital Mutilation (Circumcision) or animal cruelty (Hala, Kosher) or homophobia/sexism (pretty much all mainstream ‘traditional’ religious teachings)? I could list these all day.

In addition, there is often an inverse relationship between religious violence and state capture. Basically the more influence a religion can exert on a state, and the more powerful the state in question, the less the religion needs to practice violence itself, since it could effectively outsource its wet work to government law enforcement and military when others offend their religious beliefs.

It is both arrogant and disingenuous to point to the impotent fury of the Muslims and laugh at how ‘superior’ your western religion is when you can just demand your governments to send in the troops when you are similarly triggered. And if, as the west’s powers decline and limit their ability to go on foreign military adventures with minimal risks and costs, you might just find your local western approved religious leaders start spewing more fire and brimstone and starting to advocate getting things done yourselves.

For the record, I am an atheist. I am against using violence to generate internal change because it's self-defeating. It will only create more resistance and exacerbate the current situation which makes more difficult for french non-Muslims to change their views. Extremist attacks make the argument for those who already harbour mistrust. Many french moderate Muslims also know this so many condemned the violence. It's not just a question of right or wrong. If you want to promote changes, don't go killing other people you disagreed with.

hashtagpls · Nov 24, 2020

AssassinsMace said:
Let's face the fact that there will always be racism. If you live in a country where you're a minority, that's the risk. All you can do is defend yourself at the moment. That's the only justice you'll get. No need to convince a jury that are most likely going to part of the majority in the first place. When racist sees there's a risk to their own lives when they engage in racist activities, that's when they'll think twice about it. What do you have to lose when a racist wants to commit serious harm even kill you? There will be no kumbaya moment.

The victim culture was created so that the victimizer could control who's considered a victim. Do not believe it was created to help those that needed help the most. It's "the most victimized" that should get attention meaning only one victim at a time so that everyone else gets ignored hence why there's in-fighting among victims. It becomes a contest on who's more a victim and anger brews in those that think they're more victimized and getting the attention they think they deserve. Everyone is going after each other's throats except for the victimizers'. Going on just as planned... How long have they been giving attention to the world's victims because they care...? Fifty years? And interesting how when they demand only one at a time and everyone has to wait in line for their turn, they're still serving ticket number one after 50 years...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China played a major role in why the West even embraced human rights. WWII ended with the colonial powers being weak. The West feared someone could take advantage like communism. The Soviet Union tried to use it against the West but the problem was Russia was a colonial power also. They weren't a good example for leading a revolution against colonialism. Then the Chinese Communist Revolution of 1949 happened. The first colony to kick out Western colonialists. The West feared it could happen again and China funneled arms and money around the world to make it happen. A country didn't even need to be communist to get China's aid. That's why the West saw China as a far greater threat than the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The West had to counter or lose it all. That's when on a turn of a dime they decolonized and installed a puppet dictator to make it look they were out and embraced human rights to make it look like they cared contrary to just the day before. Why do they make China out to be the antithesis of human rights today? Because China is the only country that can gang up the world against the West. They want to make sure the world distrusts China so nothing like that could happen.

It's ironic because today in the US there are Blacks and Latinos that look at Asians doing nothing but riding off their backs when it comes to civil rights. Everyone hates each other because that's how it was designed. Because of George Floyd there's been talk about how white supremacy has to end. They will not be stopping white supremacy because they're all trying to find a way where whites will accept them meaning being able to live in a white man's world peacefully. The Chinese again are the only ones that can bring a true end to white supremacy and it will be done not through violence. It will come about in the most peaceful legal way possible and that's beating them in competition not sucking up and begging to be accepted by them. This is where even liberals will show their true colors and want to save white supremacy. How will they be able to dictate to the world what's important if they don't have the power to force it on everyone. Blacks and Latinos need them. That's what happens when your culture has been destroyed and replaced with Western values. They see a place for them in Western culture where they have advantages because they embrace and live by Western values. They have no place in someone else's culture.

Despite how there can only be one victim at a time, guess who's getting attention now where everyone has to be mindful and respectful of what "they" want? Trans people. JK Rowling, John Cleese, Gina Carano, Rosario Dawson have all been accused of public comments that offend trans people and the world has to stop to address it. When Bruce Jenner became Caitlyn Jenner the world was being corrected when anyone would call her a him. A news story even came out charging China was persecuting their transsexuals and China had to address it immediately. If you've notice all the people who get to skip ahead in line while everyone else has to wait longer are causes headed by whites. Just like when white little girls get kidnapped, they get all the attention while non-white children who get kidnapped get zero attention. Or one would think if a serial rapist was running around there would be a lot of attention given to it. Not if the victims were Asian women and the rapist wasn't an Asian man. That's what happened in liberal women rights minded UC Berkeley a few years back. You didn't see women's rights groups come out nor were there rallies in support of the victims and no local politicians and police there to promise to catch the rapist. No different from forty years before when UC Berkeley student Bibi Lee was found murdered and her body dumped on a wooded part of the campus. Turns out her boyfriend killed her and for days after went back to have sex with her dead body. People actually protested to defend him because he was a young white male with a whole future ahead of him and it shouldn't be thrown away over it.

Stopping racism isn't going to happen with these people in charge.

That being the case then, in the event of war and a Chinese victory, i have always maintained that the territories of the Anglo FVEYEs should be turned over to Chinese settlers and immigration.
The Anglo led West under the Trump admin. want a 'whole of society response' to China that really means racial holy war. The only logical outcome of such a 'response' is wholesale genocide. Why else was Trump's admin so keen on using nukes in the event of a possible war with China? They knew they couldn't hope to win outright so they made sure that the public would be ok with 'small tactical nukes'.

Against such a response, the territories of the Anglos are forfeit.

Nobonita Barua · Nov 24, 2020

texx1 said:
The actual policy is more of an accommodation which carries costs. Is the french non-Muslim majority willing to bear such costs?

One can't justify killing someone just because some skinhead baited you. You would alienate a large segment of population once you started to use violence. Even those who wanted support your view will get dismissed as violence enablers. Those extremists forced Macron's hand.

Lol, that's peddling soft extremism against hard extremism. When you did what they did, you already alienated 1/4 of entire global population.

And yes, one can't justify killing someone. But law doesn't stop you from killing someone. It punishes you. As long as they are ok with the punishment, as they have shown they are ok, technically you can't do anything.

You understand you are defending a nation's practice,that committed genocide & crime against humanity which by law doesn't even have the right to exist, now trying to do "Neo-colonialism" on other's faith by declaring their freedom over other's faith.

I don't care about who believes in god or believes in right of his azz, however, a math is math.

Freedom of expression must guarantee freedom of reaction. You can't ask me to be free, in the way you want me to be free.

Nobonita Barua · Nov 24, 2020

solarz said:
I'm no muslim, but I highly doubt they get rabidly violent over every drawing of Mohammed. I suspect only those drawings explicitly designed to insult them would get the kind of extremism we saw in France.

Actually they are. They are pretty sensitive to their prophet, religious books & god thingys.

Nobonita Barua · Nov 24, 2020

texx1 said:
For the record, I am an atheist. I am against using violence to generate internal change because it's self-defeating. It will only create more resistance and exacerbate the current situation which makes more difficult for french non-Muslims to change their views. Extremist attacks make the argument for those who already harbour mistrust. Many french moderate Muslims also know this so many condemned the violence. It's not just a question of right or wrong. If you want to promote changes, don't go killing other people you disagreed with.

Yep, frenchies colonized North Africa, committed crime against humanity, looted it, then became beacon of democracy, sending their bikini boys to preach freedom else where. When they get hit back, they get triggered, and want other's to change their views.

I can't talk for them, but i can certainly talk for myself. I ain't mama of french fries. I find it far more entertaining to change their looks.

Why don't you tell them to draw cartoon about me? I am agnostic, whatever i believe is for me, under my "IP protection".
I will never give a millimeter of my belonging regardless of how much french fries it costs. I insist on my freedom. Let's see any frenchie challenge that.

You want to talk about freedom & secularism?You need to "secularize" the "freedom" first. How did you miss that?

NiuBiDaRen · Dec 3, 2020

Anti-Asian hate crime jumps 1,900 percent
Meng’s resolution denouncing COVID-driven bias passes House

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I'm even more shocked by the high number of anti-Jewish hate crime. What kind of world are we living in, where Jewish people are still being harassed regularly? This is 2020.

Racism in Australia

texx1

Junior Member

plawolf

Lieutenant General

hashtagpls

Senior Member

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General

texx1

Junior Member

hashtagpls

Senior Member

Nobonita Barua

Senior Member

Nobonita Barua

Senior Member

Nobonita Barua

Senior Member

NiuBiDaRen

Brigadier