Because getting your head chopped off only hurts if it is done by black people, or a white man in black (I mean Muslim) clothing....


polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 12:01pm:

Islamophobia always has and always will be about "race" White muslims don't get picked on - unless they have highly visible "racial" markers (hijab, muslim robe etc). Come to think of it, FD's hysterics about the way "rage boy" naturally looked horrible and vile because he had a big nose and other "non-white" features - was rather telling.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 10:46am:

freediver wrote on Nov 16th, 2014 at 4:11pm: Meanwhile, the good Muslims are on here explaining why they cannot tolerate white people having freedom of speech, in case they mock Muhammed. Yes that is an interesting thing to bring up. FD, why do you mention white people? Can you quote any "good Muslims... on here" railing against white people?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 11:29am:

Breaking: white man wakes up and spends his day enjoying his inherited privilege.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 11:37am:

ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 11:31am: And what does this inherited privelege entitle the white man to? lecture everyone about how morally superior he is to the lazy, dirty blackies - apparently.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 12:13pm:

ian wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 11:44am: well come on Gandalf, if all you have is snide remarks with no basis in reality then you have nothing. Oh I do apologise - the thread was going so well since you started it with your - totally not snyde at all - opening post. But I'm not going to waste my time explaining to the likes of you how the cycle of poverty and underprivilege perpetuates its way so destructively through generations, and how publicly funded "leg up" programs are not only morally justified, but are eminently sensible social and economic policies that benefit the entire nation. No, not to you - not to someone who doesn't know the meaning of underprivilege, and who will never experience a day of it - not because (as you will no doubt lecture us all) because of all the heroic sacrifices and hard work you will claim you have done - but because of where you were born and the colour of your skin.

polite_gandalf wrote on Oct 4^th, 2014 at 3:41pm:

I know what you will counter with - that the antidote against the threats from both is to embrace freedom even more wholeheartedly; that a sort of "free market" political and intellectual environment will sort us all out for the better. I cannot agree with such an idealism, and I am particularly intolerant of it when it is being lectured by someone who is from the dominant, privileged strata of our society. Someone who will never experience real discrimination or prejudice, demanding that the most vulnerable stand up and embrace the idea that they should be mocked and ridiculed for their cultural and ethnic background.

True, FD, but according to your good self, the Muslims only hate Freeeeedom when it comes to white people.

What say you?

Looks like Herbie's taking up FD's argument:


Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 12:17pm:

Someone's comment: "This is a good start, but it is not enough.  Every Muslim needs to be deported out of Norway.  They do not belong in Norway or any of these other European countries.  The Muslims have the entire Middle East where they can pray to Allah, ride camels and rape women. Same with the Blacks – deport them back to Africa.  They don’t need to be killing and eating people in Norway". link

What do you think FD - Herb's anti-islam has an element of racism?

After going to the trouble of starting an entire new thread because of a question I asked him, I guess it never occured to FD to actually answer the question.

Best just to dump a whole heap of random quotes together and expect a sensible discussion to ensue....

Like always.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 3:51pm:

What do you think FD - Herb's anti-islam has an element of racism?

FD won't say.

Instead, he'll show you Muslims to be awful tinted victims, always accusing decent white people of being racists.

Islam? Come come.

FD blames boongs.

Reminds me of some of the people on this board


http://i.imgur.com/4UundGL.jpg

Karnal and Wally, husband and wife together on the same thread.
Touching!

wally1 wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 4:35pm:

Reminds me of some of the people on this board http://i.imgur.com/4UundGL.jpg

That's the same for Muslims. Look at them killing each other.

Rocketanski wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 4:38pm:

Karnal and Wally, husband and wife together on the same thread. Touching!

I blame Islam.

Or boongs. I forget which.

Karnal, for how long does spousey let you out of your room under the stairs?

FD wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 5:29pm:

I blame Islam. Or boongs. I forget which.

Take herb's approach - blame both. For everything. That way you don't have to remember which.


Rocketanski wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 5:51pm:

Karnal, for how long does spousey let you out of your room under the stairs?

Long enough to lick his boots.

What question do you want me to answer Gandalf?

freediver wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 7:29pm:

What question do you want me to answer Gandalf?

The one I asked FD - amazingly enough.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 7:29pm: What question do you want me to answer Gandalf? The one I asked FD - amazingly enough.

Gee, G, that’s a bit harsh.

Can’t FD ask his own questions?

You ask lots of silly questions Gandalf. I confess to ignoring most of them. That is most likely why I didn't answer it. You are welcome to try again.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 7:37pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 7:29pm: What question do you want me to answer Gandalf? The one I asked FD - amazingly enough.

Oh for goodness' sake, why not just repeat the bloody question instead of this circuitous bulldust. Round and round the mulberry bush...

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 3:51pm:

What do you think FD - Herb's anti-islam has an element of racism?

That was a quote from someone in Norway.

But in terms of the bulk movement of blacks into traditionally white societies ~ I'm racist as hell. And you can quote me.

The 'melting pot' is a myth.

Colour polarises people to their 'own community' ... and that will never change.

freediver wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

You ask lots of silly questions Gandalf. I confess to ignoring most of them. That is most likely why I didn't answer it. You are welcome to try again.

That’s a statement, FD. You need to put this in the form of a question.

Lord Herbert wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 8:26pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 3:51pm: What do you think FD - Herb's anti-islam has an element of racism? That was a quote from someone in Norway. But in terms of the bulk movement of blacks into traditionally white societies ~ I'm racist as hell. And you can quote me. The 'melting pot' is a myth. Colour polarises people to their 'own community' ... and that will never change.

FD, is this what you meant by Muslims and their attempted censorship of white people?

That’s a question.

I agree. It is a question.

freediver wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 8:19pm:

You ask lots of silly questions Gandalf. I confess to ignoring most of them. That is most likely why I didn't answer it. You are welcome to try again.

Sorry FD, it was presumptuous of me to think you would understand it to be the question that kicked this whole discussion off....

anyway, as you wish - why did you bring up white people in the context of muslims being against free speech when no one else mentioned them?

I assumed that's what you were on about with this:


Quote:

I know what you will counter with - that the antidote against the threats from both is to embrace freedom even more wholeheartedly; that a sort of "free market" political and intellectual environment will sort us all out for the better. I cannot agree with such an idealism, and I am particularly intolerant of it when it is being lectured by someone who is from the dominant, privileged strata of our society. Someone who will never experience real discrimination or prejudice, demanding that the most vulnerable stand up and embrace the idea that they should be mocked and ridiculed for their cultural and ethnic background.

If you meant some other group, feel free to correct me.

Good point, FD. Are you arguing, qua Herbie and the old boy, that the once proud white race is now the victim of savage tinted hoards and cannibals?

This is another question.

Not quite. Thats me saying I can't tolerate you and your privileged ilk lecturing minorities that they must embrace being mocked, not muslims telling white people they can't have freedom of speech.

See if you can understand the difference.

The difference is those awful darkies and their spineless apologists are trying to take away our Freeeeedom to mock and criticize them.

And I, for onr, would fight to the death for FD’s right to do so.

Typical.

How can you tell that me and my ilk are privileged?

They must embrace freedom of speech. They must tolerate their religion and ideologies being mocked. They must abandon any attempt at imposing sacred cows on the rest of us. This is a bare minimum requirement for living in a civilised society. Tell the rest of your ilk.

freediver wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 10:19pm:

Tell the rest of your ilk.

Darkies?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 10:07pm:

Not quite. Thats me saying I can't tolerate you and your privileged ilk lecturing minorities that they must embrace being mocked, not muslims telling white people they can't have freedom of speech.

So FD's "privileged ilk" can have freedom of speech, so long as they don't mock minorities?

Incidentally, isn't FD's "privileged ilk" a minority too? Does this mean that they cannot mock themselves?

MumboJumbo wrote on Nov 17^th, 2014 at 10:54pm:

So FD's "privileged ilk" can have freedom of speech, so long as they don't mock minorities?

As I suspected, the difference is a little too subtle for some.

FD previously made the case that muslims must demonstrate their love of freedom by jumping up and down demanding they be mocked and ridiculed. Thats absurd. Muslims have and do repeatedly tell their people to react to ridicule against them peacefully. That of course is not enough for FD, who is an extremist in our society,. But mainstream Australians will commend the muslims for this, because they (unlike FD) are sympathetic to the real threat to the human rights of vulnerable minorities. Mainstream Australians will always understand that freedom of speech requires a delicate balancing act between the rights of speech and the right to be free of vilification. Its a balance that FD will never acknowledge - he thinks the limits on speech should be restricted to shouting fire in a theatre and a direct threat to someone's life. And thats why he'll always be an extremist in our society. 

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:29am:

- he thinks the limits on speech should be restricted to shouting fire in a theatre and a direct threat to someone's life. And thats why he'll always be an extremist in our society.

How appalling. I, for one, would fight to the death for our right to shout fire in a theatre and directly threaten someone's life.

That's Freeeedom.

FD wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 9:01am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 7:29am: - he thinks the limits on speech should be restricted to shouting fire in a theatre and a direct threat to someone's life. And thats why he'll always be an extremist in our society.  How appalling. I, for one, would fight to the death for our right to shout fire in a theatre and directly threaten someone's life.

I have no doubt about that,     ......seeing as you are an apologist and defender of wanna-be-murderers.

Coz, it is all about freeedom, innit!    K ?





'THE MOSLEM', IN AUSTRALIA, PROTESTING IN SUPPORT OF HIS 'FREEDOM' TO PRACTICE THE 'FREEDOM' OF RELIGION OF THE MOSLEM !!!


IMAGE....
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/08/27/1227038/812722-d0870956-2cc7-11e4-a978-2255e0b773c2.jpg

"Behead those who insult ISLAM"
Islamic Protest - IN AUSTRALIA - on the streets of Sydney from Hyde Park to George Streets, September 15, 2012.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:29am:

MumboJumbo wrote on Nov 17th, 2014 at 10:54pm: So FD's "privileged ilk" can have freedom of speech, so long as they don't mock minorities? As I suspected, the difference is a little too subtle for some. FD previously made the case that muslims must demonstrate their love of freedom by jumping up and down demanding they be mocked and ridiculed. Thats absurd. Muslims have and do repeatedly tell their people to react to ridicule against them peacefully.

gandalf,

If that is so, the message IS NOT BEING HEARD, by the moslem.....



MOSLEMS, 'EXCITING' A MURDEROUS HATRED OF THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE, AS MOSLEMS BELIEVE



THAT, IS WHAT IS BEING TAUGHT TO MOSLEM CHILDREN - IN AUSTRALIA - TODAY - AS BEING A 'LAWFUL' CONDITION FOR A 'SOCIETY'.

AND THAT POSITION IS BEING TAUGHT TO MOSLEM CHILDREN - IN AUSTRALIA -, BY MAINSTREAM ISLAM, AND BY THE MAINSTREAM MOSLEM COMMUNITY.      [....blatant and bare faced denials withstanding!]

e.g.
Muslims brainwash children in Australia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krk5piUzp1E




AND.....



IMAGE...
http://www.zionism-israel.com/ezine/Isllam2.jpg
London

Moslems on London streets, openly demanding their right to exercise their 'freedom of religion',
.....the 'religious' right of the moslem,        ...to kill people who do not believe as they [moslems] believe.


n.b.
Mainstream ISLAM teaches 'the moslem' that is an insult to Allah's perfect religion [and a capital crime], to reject ISLAM.



THOSE PLACARDS, AT A MOSLEM STREET PROTEST IN LONDON READ.....

"Slay those who insult Islam"
"Behead those who insult Islam"
"Massacre those who insult Islam"
"Butcher those who mock Islam"
"Europe you will pay, demolition is on its way"
"Europe you will pay, extermination is on its way"
"Exterminate those who slander Islam"
"Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer"
"Islam will dominate the world"
"Freedom go to hell"
"Europe take some lessons from 9/11"
"Be prepared for the real Holocaust"
"BBC = British Blasphemic Crusaders"






gandalf,

Clearly, the musleman needs to raise his voice, for what he truly believes in.

Let us all here it!!!

With one accord from all of the muslemen......


"ISLAM is peace [and harmony]."             :P

Yadda wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 9:08am:

FD wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 9:01am: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 7:29am: - he thinks the limits on speech should be restricted to shouting fire in a theatre and a direct threat to someone's life. And thats why he'll always be an extremist in our society.  How appalling. I, for one, would fight to the death for our right to shout fire in a theatre and directly threaten someone's life. I have no doubt about that,     ......seeing as you are an apologist and defender of wanna-be-murderers. Coz, it is all about freeedom, innit!    K ?

Good point, Y. I forgot about the Moslems.

I take that back. I, for one, would fight to the death for our right to shout fire in a theatre and directly threaten someone's life -

Except for the Moslems. And the darkies. Innit.

Gandalf, what did you mean by me and my ilk, and the privileged strata, if not white people? Perhaps you meant beautiful people? No need to be jealous. Just get some skin whitener an watch a few episodes of Seinfeld. You'll fit right in.


Quote:

FD previously made the case that muslims must demonstrate their love of freedom by jumping up and down demanding they be mocked and ridiculed. Thats absurd.

You must have me confused with someone else Gandalf. I have only ever heard Muslims carry on like this.


Quote:

Muslims have and do repeatedly tell their people to react to ridicule against them peacefully. That of course is not enough for FD

Of course not. Whether you choose to destroy freedom through peaceful or violent means doesn't change the fact that you are out to destroy people's freedom. I have explained this to you before Gandalf. The only reason people prefer the peaceful ones is because they are easier to put in their place.


Quote:

who is an extremist in our society,. But mainstream Australians will commend the muslims for this, because they (unlike FD) are sympathetic to the real threat to the human rights of vulnerable minorities

Only a Muslim could claim that freedom and human rights are harmful to minorities and that they are best protected by taking them away.


Quote:

Mainstream Australians will always understand that freedom of speech requires a delicate balancing act between the rights of speech and the right to be free of vilification.

You mean making it illegal to criticise or mock Islam? You've really got your finger on the pulse of urban Australia there, don't you Gandalf?


Quote:

Its a balance that FD will never acknowledge - he thinks the limits on speech should be restricted to shouting fire in a theatre and a direct threat to someone's life. And thats why he'll always be an extremist in our society.

Quote me.

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

Gandalf, what did you mean by me and my ilk, and the privileged strata, if not white people?

Now now, FD, calm down. There's no need to get upset. We're all friend here.

Personally, it's hard to say whether you're white or not from your picture. You look a bit sunburnt to me.

You seem to be arguing your ilk don't have the right to not be offended. You seem to be saying your ilk should be exhempt from criticism and mockery. Fair call. Even the sunburnt have feelings, and we should all respect this. I, for one, would fight to the death for your right to be offended.

If you want to mock and criticize the tinted races, this is your right in a civilized society. If you want to express your ilk's offence, this should be encouraged. After all, the old boy does it all the time. I think he's white too, if not a little brown in parts.

I understand you're offended, FD, but remember: we're all friends here. If G's posts cause you to become offended, all you have to do is ask him to take them back.

I'm sure he'll understand, even if he is of their ilk.

And we all know what that means, eh?

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

Gandalf, what did you mean by me and my ilk, and the privileged strata, if not white people?

It encompasses the dominant ethno-cultural strata of our society. Most of us in this group probably just so happen to be white, but it is not about the colour of your skin. Many whites are excluded - gays, disabled, and to a large extent, women also. Your "ilk" is the holier-than-thou types who rabbit all day long about freedoms as strictly a one-way street - defend people's right to mock, ridicule and humiliate, but give no attention to the dangers of excesses, and people's right not to be vilified and intimidated. Fortunately most people from this privileged strata are sensible enough to take a more nuanced approach to freedoms, and understand that it must be a two way street. And thus you are an extremist, FD, because you are out of step with this mainstream sentiment - and you arrogantly dismiss any deviation from your extremist one-way approach to freedom as some sinister sort of "chipping away" at our freedoms.

Thats what I mean by you and your ilk.

Exhibit A - any sort of expression protesting against mocking and ridicule = "choosing to destroy freedom":


freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

Of course not. Whether you choose to destroy freedom through peaceful or violent means doesn't change the fact that you are out to destroy people's freedom. I have explained this to you before Gandalf. The only reason people prefer the peaceful ones is because they are easier to put in their place.

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

Only a Muslim could claim that freedom and human rights are harmful to minorities and that they are best protected by taking them away.

Only FD could claim that "human rights" involves demanding vulnerable minorities accept intimidation and vilification, with no consideration at all to the right to be protected from intimidation and vilification.


freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 1:09pm:

Quote me.

Don't be daft. I asked you directly if there was any situation (besides the "fire in the theatre" example) where you would advocate limiting freedom of speech - and you cited just one situation - where someone was directly threatened with physical harm. If you think there are other situations, feel free to elaborate.

Gandalf has it ever occurred to you that people might criticise Islam because of what Muhammed did and what Muslims continue to do, rather than race? Or has everything that has been said here over the last few years fallen on stubbornly deaf ears?


Quote:

It encompasses the dominant ethno-cultural strata of our society. Most of us in this group probably just so happen to be white, but it is not about the colour of your skin. Many whites are excluded - gays, disabled, and to a large extent, women also.

Ah, so I should have said white heterosexual males, rather than just white people? These are the ones you are particularly intolerant of when they promote freedom and human rights?


Quote:

Your "ilk" is the holier-than-thou types who rabbit all day long about freedoms as strictly a one-way street - defend people's right to mock, ridicule and humiliate, but give no attention to the dangers of excesses, and people's right not to be vilified and intimidated.

Criticising Islam is not an 'excess'. Religious sacred cows are pretty much the reason for freedom of speech.


Quote:

Fortunately most people from this privileged strata are sensible enough to take a more nuanced approach to freedoms

You mean they want to ban criticism of Islam?


Quote:

And thus you are an extremist, FD, because you are out of step with this mainstream sentiment - and you arrogantly dismiss any deviation from your extremist one-way approach to freedom as some sinister sort of "chipping away" at our freedoms.

What I describe as chipping away at our freedoms is Muslims killing people and threatening to chop their head off if they mock Muhammed, or the OIC trying to outlaw blasphemy via the UN, or weasel words from Muslims like you about supporting a "more nuanced" approach to freedom of speech that basically involves discarding it entirely. You are getting closer to ABu on this by the day.


Quote:

Exhibit A - any sort of expression protesting against mocking and ridicule = "choosing to destroy freedom":

Even when you quote me you cannot get it right. For someone who prattles on about nuances you have a habit of missing the point. To you, banning criticism and mockery of Islam is achieving a "delicate balance," but the difference between criticising what people say and trying to punish them for saying it is incomprehensible.


Quote:

Only FD could claim that "human rights" involves demanding vulnerable minorities accept intimidation and vilification, with no consideration at all to the right to be protected from intimidation and vilification.

No Gandalf, that is pretty much what freedom of speech means. Mocking Muhammed is not intimidation or vilification.


Quote:

Don't be daft. I asked you directly if there was any situation (besides the "fire in the theatre" example) where you would advocate limiting freedom of speech - and you cited just one situation - where someone was directly threatened with physical harm. If you think there are other situations, feel free to elaborate.

You asked for an example. I gave two. At no stage did I say that was the extent of it. I have given other examples also.

Sorry to interrupt, FD.

Yes, it did occur that people might criticize Islam because of what Muhammed did.

Until you went and accused Muslims of offending decent white people.

Whoops.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 4:04pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 1:09pm: Gandalf, what did you mean by me and my ilk, and the privileged strata, if not white people? It encompasses the dominant ethno-cultural strata of our society. Most of us in this group probably just so happen to be white, but it is not about the colour of your skin. Many whites are excluded - gays, disabled, and to a large extent, women also. Your "ilk" is the holier-than-thou types who rabbit all day long about freedoms as strictly a one-way street - defend people's right to mock, ridicule and humiliate, but give no attention to the dangers of excesses, and people's right not to be vilified and intimidated. Fortunately most people from this privileged strata are sensible enough to take a more nuanced approach to freedoms, and understand that it must be a two way street. And thus you are an extremist, FD, because you are out of step with this mainstream sentiment - and you arrogantly dismiss any deviation from your extremist one-way approach to freedom as some sinister sort of "chipping away" at our freedoms. Thats what I mean by you and your ilk. Exhibit A - any sort of expression protesting against mocking and ridicule = "choosing to destroy freedom":

I almost said F.Orf, Gandy but I think  held back in the last moment.

Ideas and ideology have nothing to do with this "ethno-cultural strata" that you are hiding behind. Not in the open and free societies of Westrn liberal democracy where you, as an individual, decide what cultural practice you adopt and follow - an ill be responsible for your choices. You will b esponsible, not your "efno-cultural" tribe or group.


Bringing all that group-think, all that tribal allegiance and group-mentality into societies essentially individualistic in the sense of personal responsibility  rather than tribal honour - is  challenging to Arab Muslim immigrants and other group-identity, honour-based cultures but they must adapt, not the Western society to them.


This pseudo-Marxist nonsense about privileged strata and nuanced approach to freedom is nonsense. It is an attempt to wrest individual rights and responsibilities and transfer them to the tribe, the group, the 'strata'.

And here’s the old boy apologizing with his gibberish. Lucky he held back, eh?

It’s not looking too good, FD.

FD wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 8:40pm:

And here’s the old boy apologizing with his gibberish. Lucky he held back, eh? It’s not looking too good, FD.

Thank you for conceding that the ethno-cultural strata crap is crap.
Your grinning stupidly means you are once again lost for a coherent argument about group rights versus individual right so you once again fall back on the tried and tired old PB routine of pretending to be even stupider then you really are. It is a lot of effort on your part so well done. You are stupider and more bewildered than I thought.
5 points.

No more holding back, eh?

G has a point. Here I am, a decent white person, the sort offended by the Muselmen. Daily.

But with the old boy, I’m a tinted Pakistani Bastard. Is this correlation not causation, dear boy?

FD let it slip that it’s all about race.

FD wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 9:08pm:

No more holding back, eh? G has a point. Here I am, a decent white person, the sort offended by the Muselmen. Daily. But with the old boy, I’m a tinted Pakistani Bastard. Is this correlation not causation, dear boy? FD let it slip that it’s all about race.

Your grinning stupidly means you are once again lost for a coherent argument about group rights versus individual right so you once again fall back on the tried and tired old PB routine of pretending to be even stupider then you really are. It is a lot of effort on your part so well done. You are stupider and more bewildered than I thought.

Soren wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 9:14pm:

FD wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 9:08pm: No more holding back, eh? G has a point. Here I am, a decent white person, the sort offended by the Muselmen. Daily. But with the old boy, I’m a tinted Pakistani Bastard. Is this correlation not causation, dear boy? FD let it slip that it’s all about race. Your grinning stupidly means you are once again lost for a coherent argument about group rights versus individual right so you once again fall back on the tried and tired old PB routine of pretending to be even stupider then you really are. It is a lot of effort on your part so well done. You are stupider and more bewildered than I thought.

Stupid? What happened to mendacious?

I mean, here I am, one of FD’s ilk, and I’m.trying to silence decent white people from exposing the crimes of the Muselman.

Stupid? Come come.

I’m tinted.

FD wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 9:54pm:

Soren wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 9:14pm: FD wrote on Nov 18th, 2014 at 9:08pm: No more holding back, eh? G has a point. Here I am, a decent white person, the sort offended by the Muselmen. Daily. But with the old boy, I’m a tinted Pakistani Bastard. Is this correlation not causation, dear boy? FD let it slip that it’s all about race. Your grinning stupidly means you are once again lost for a coherent argument about group rights versus individual right so you once again fall back on the tried and tired old PB routine of pretending to be even stupider then you really are. It is a lot of effort on your part so well done. You are stupider and more bewildered than I thought. Stupid? What happened to mendacious?

It goes without saying, that yes, K, you are.


Dictionary;
mendacious = = untruthful.

Thanks, Y, but now I’m totally confused. 

Does that make me a dirty PB, or one of FD’s decent white people?

Stupid or mendacious? Mendacious or stupid?

Sometimes a question is just a question, you know.

+++

freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:12pm:

Gandalf has it ever occurred to you that people might criticise Islam because of what Muhammed did and what Muslims continue to do, rather than race?

Sure it did - that is until you brought up race, which no one else had mentioned. Thats why me and K are now confused.


freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:12pm:

What I describe as chipping away at our freedoms is Muslims killing people and threatening to chop their head off if they mock Muhammed, or the OIC trying to outlaw blasphemy via the UN, or weasel words from Muslims like you about supporting a "more nuanced" approach to freedom of speech that basically involves discarding it entirely. You are getting closer to ABu on this by the day.

I know FD - you've just summed up your complete lack of evidence or any sort of coherent justification for your claim that mainstream muslim Australians are "chipping away at our freedoms at every opportunity" - which is what I've been trying to point out for over 20 pages.


freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:12pm:

For someone who prattles on about nuances you have a habit of missing the point. To you, banning criticism and mockery of Islam is achieving a "delicate balance," but the difference between criticising what people say and trying to punish them for saying it is incomprehensible.

The only thing to be said is you've spent all this time mistakenly thinking I want to ban criticism and mockery of islam. I don't - most Australians might, but I don't. I made the point a long time ago that I am more liberal than the mainstream on the issue of freedom of speech. I, for example, don't believe "offend" should be part of the Racial Discrimination Act - but a huge majority of Australians do.


freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:12pm:

No Gandalf, that is pretty much what freedom of speech means. Mocking Muhammed is not intimidation or vilification

I agree - but thanks for the strawman. Intimidating and vilifying muslims is intimidation and vilification though.


freediver wrote on Nov 18^th, 2014 at 7:12pm:

You asked for an example. I gave two. At no stage did I say that was the extent of it. I have given other examples also.

Then why were you so coy about it then? You spent all that thread ridiculing me for not coming up with enough examples - and now you reveal now that you actually had some more instances in mind yourself? Can you reveal them now? I am most interested in knowing how FD, the great warrior for freedom, thinks our freedoms should be curtailed. Fire away, please.

Quote:

Sure it did - that is until you brought up race, which no one else had mentioned. Thats why me and K are now confused.

Sorry I forgot. You were talking about a privileged strata who "just happen to be" white, not about white people per se. Then started ranting about white privilege in other threads.

Tell me Gandalf, if I was a black one-armed communist lesbian, would you find it easier to tolerate me sticking up for freedom of speech? Or is it inconceivable to you that a minority might want to maintain their freedom? Freedom is something that the oppressors impose on innocent Muslims, no?


Quote:

The only thing to be said is you've spent all this time mistakenly thinking I want to ban criticism and mockery of islam. I don't - most Australians might, but I don't.

Ah, so you are more in favour of freedom of speech than the vast majority of Australians?


Quote:

I made the point a long time ago that I am more liberal than the mainstream on the issue of freedom of speech.

As well as being intolerant of white men promoting the right to mock religion?


Quote:

I, for example, don't believe "offend" should be part of the Racial Discrimination Act - but a huge majority of Australians do.

Good for you. Have you considered joining the Liberal party, now that you are an extremist?


Quote:

Then why were you so coy about it then?

I am not coy. Every time you insist I think they should be the only limitations on freedom of speech, I demand you quote me. You ignore this and go into your usual rant about me being an extremist for holding the views you project onto me, as well as a hypocrit for not actually holding those views. If you like I can quote some examples of me asking for a quote in response to this specific accusation.


Quote:

and now you reveal now that you actually had some more instances in mind yourself?

Not just "in mind" Gandalf. I have brought them up in discussions with you.


Quote:

Can you reveal them now?

I can give you another example - libel and slander laws - which I agree with in principle, thought I have some issues with the details. That is not to say that this is the extent of it of course. A good lawyer could probably come up with a dozen more off the top of his head.

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 8:36am:

Tell me Gandalf, if I was a black one-armed communist lesbian, would you find it easier to tolerate me sticking up for freedom of speech?

I wouldn't tolerate the sort of rubbish that you spew regardless of who said it and what the colour of their skin was. Your extremist hysterics are intolerable because they are extremist hysterics - not because it comes from a white guy. You'd also do well to revisit how this point of mine about privilege was raised in the first place, and the particular point of yours I took objection to  - and to desist with this idiotic strawman that this has anything to do with me dictating how you should and shouldn't express yourself. In fact it was actually the other way around.


freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 8:36am:

Freedom is something that the oppressors impose on innocent Muslims, no?

Your warped version of freedom certainly is a version of oppression. For anyone else, muslim leaders condemning violence and imploring their fellow muslims to respond peacefully to insults to their religion is something to be commended. Not FD though - for you this is actually an indication of how sinister the muslims are, because you can gleefully stand on your moral high horse and say "ahh - but they never said specifically you have the *RIGHT* to insult us... GUILTY!!" - even when we all know full well that no other religious leader would champion that right, nor would we expect them too. Thats what you do FD - you twist the normal, reasonable - even commendable behaviour of normal every day muslims into something that is somehow deeply sinister and suspicious. And the worst thing about it is that it is so obviously behaviour that is no less and no more "anti-freedom" than the every day behaviour of non-muslims. And you must go to such ridiculous lengths to cherry pick only the behaviour of one section of society, and either ignore or spinelessly apologise for the same types of behaviour of the other. You are clearly an extremist on this issue - thats not saying it for the sake of it - its important to keep pointing out to you that your version of freedom is rejected by *BOTH* the muslim and non-muslim community, and you are a hypocrite for pretending you are only out of step with one of them.

Quote:

You'd also do well to revisit how this point of mine about privilege was raised in the first place

As I recall, it was an attempt by you to justify your opposition to freedom of speech. Did I miss something? Or were you referring to your post about Islamophibia being about race (always, absolutely, never ever)?


Quote:

and the particular point of yours I took objection to

You mean, you "know what my response is going to be"? Or that imaginary quote where I insisted Muslims jump up and down for me?


Quote:

our warped version of freedom certainly is a version of oppression. For anyone else, muslim leaders condemning violence and imploring their fellow muslims to respond peacefully to insults to their religion is something to be commended. Not FD though - for you this is actually an indication of how sinister the muslims are

No Gandalf, I merely pointed out that this is not an example of Muslims speaking out in support of freedom of speech. Abu for example was quite clear on this - he opposed Muslims taking the law into their own hands, but still wanted those laws changed. He was opposed to both freedom of speech, and non-sanctioned violence. You mislead people by insisting that opposition to non-sanctioned violence is actually support for freedom of speech.


Quote:

because you can gleefully stand on your moral high horse and say "ahh - but they never said specifically you have the *RIGHT* to insult us... GUILTY!!"

Because they did not even mention freedom of speech or anything like that. They spoke out about a violent over-reaction. This is not the same as opposing any reaction, and you are clutching at straws to claim it is.


Quote:

even when we all know full well that no other religious leader would champion that right, nor would we expect them too

Other religious leaders do speak out in support of freedom of speech Gandalf. Just not Muslim leaders. 


Quote:

Thats what you do FD - you twist the normal, reasonable - even commendable behaviour of normal every day muslims into something that is somehow deeply sinister and suspicious.

No Gandalf, I pointed out that it is not what you claim it is. It was the absence of Muslims standing up for freedom of speech that I said was sinister

Is this all about race Gandalf? If it is, why do you always allow yourself to get sidetracked into discussing irrelevant issues like freedom of speech?

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

You mean, you "know what my response is going to be"? Or that imaginary quote where I insisted Muslims jump up and down for me?

No, where you insist that muslims are the enemy of freedom until they stand up (or jump up and down if you like) and insist people must have the right to mock and ridicule their religion - and themselves. Now tell me thats a made up statement - I double dare you.


freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

No Gandalf, I merely pointed out that this is not an example of Muslims speaking out in support of freedom of speech.

In just your last post you described it as wanting to ban criticism of islam.


freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

he opposed Muslims taking the law into their own hands, but still wanted those laws changed. He was opposed to both freedom of speech, and non-sanctioned violence.

Gosh FD - you wouldn't be subtly implying that peaceful muslim reactions to criticism is basically the same as opposing people's right to criticism would you? Because that would directly contradict what you claimed in the sentence just before.


freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

Because they did not even mention freedom of speech or anything like that. They spoke out about a violent over-reaction. This is not the same as opposing any reaction

Ah yes, I nearly forgot, silly me. Exercising your right to peacefully oppose criticism is by default trying to undermine free speech - because they didn't specifically mention people's right to freedom of speech.


freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

Other religious leaders do speak out in support of freedom of speech Gandalf.

So do muslims - like speaking out against the proposed ban on hizbut tahrir. But I know what you mean - we ignore that sort of support. Unfortunately though, no other religious leaders speak out in support of ridiculing their own religion. But we do have a plethora of examples of things like George Pell attempting to get the government to ban mocking christianity. But again, we'll quietly ignore those.


freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

No Gandalf, I pointed out that it is not what you claim it is. It was the absence of Muslims standing up for freedom of speech that I said was sinister

I know FD, and I'll repeat the same thing you just misunderstood - mainstream muslims are no different to mainstream non-muslims in this respect.


freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 12:38pm:

Is this all about race Gandalf? If it is, why do you always allow yourself to get sidetracked into discussing irrelevant issues like freedom of speech?

You tell me - why *DO* you cherry pick muslim attitudes and behaviour vis-a-vis freedom of speech and pretend its a uniquely muslim thing - when it so demonstrably is not? Is it about race?

FD just stands up for the Freeeedom to defend his race. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Muslims and cannibals have no right to not be offended.

These people are tinted.

From the racism thread: [now back in the racism thread]


polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 2:12pm:

No, where you insist that muslims are the enemy of freedom until they stand up (or jump up and down if you like) and insist people must have the right to mock and ridicule their religion - and themselves. Now tell me thats a made up statement - I double dare you.

It's getting much closer, but still not what I actually said. This would be a whole lot simpler if you would just quote these objectional remarks you insist I made.


Quote:

In just your last post you described it as wanting to ban criticism of islam.

Wanting to ban criticism of Islam is wanting to ban criticism of Islam. Failing to mention or take a stance on freedom of speech is failing to mention or take a stance on freedom of speech. Again, given your obvious comprehension difficulty, this would be a lot simpler if you used quotes. It would be easier for you also, in that you would not have to type it out again, though obviously harder to make whatever case you are attempting to make.


Quote:

Gosh FD - you wouldn't be subtly implying that peaceful muslim reactions to criticism is basically the same as opposing people's right to criticism would you?

No Gandalf, I was trying to say, as clearly and slowly as possible, over and over again, that these are not the same thing. You are the only one trying to equate the two.


Quote:

Exercising your right to peacefully oppose criticism is by default trying to undermine free speech - because they didn't specifically mention people's right to freedom of speech.

Gandalf, it was you who attempted to use Muslim leaders failing to mention freedom of speech as an example of them speaking out in support of freedom of speech. I have claimed no default position. Like I said plenty of times before, the range of responses I have seen from Muslims span violent opposition to freedom of speech, opposition through legal channels, calls for bans, through to silence.


Quote:

So do muslims - like speaking out against the proposed ban on hizbut tahrir.

There you go again Gandalf - citing an example of Muslim leaders not talking about freedom of speech as an example of Muslim leaders speaking out in support of freedom of speech. You still barely know what we are talking about.


Quote:

Unfortunately though, no other religious leaders speak out in support of ridiculing their own religion.

They speak out in support of the right to do so. This does not mean they support the ridicule of their religion. This far into the debate I should not have to explain such simple concepts. The concept of supporting people's right to say something, even you do not agree with it, is widely understood and supported in the west.


Quote:

I know FD, and I'll repeat the same thing you just misunderstood - mainstream muslims are no different to mainstream non-muslims in this respect.

You claimed the vast majority of Australians support a ban on criticising or mocking religion. This is the BS that you build on to make this case.


Quote:

You tell me - why *DO* you cherry pick muslim attitudes and behaviour vis-a-vis freedom of speech and pretend its a uniquely muslim thing - when it so demonstrably is not? Is it about race?

I don't. But right now, Muslims are the biggest threat to our freedom of speech, by any measure.

The last 1 Posts were moved here from Islam by gandalf.

I see. Censoring decent white people again, are we?

Typical.

FD, do you stand by your support of Herbie’s claim that, after we get rid of the Muslims, the blacks will be next?

I hope you can answer this, given you started a thread about it.

FD wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

FD, do you stand by your support of Herbie’s claim that, after we get rid of the Muslims, the blacks will be next? I hope you can answer this, given you started a thread about it.

Nonsense K - people who mock islam are not thinking about race at all - even when they are the first ones to bring it up.

freediver wrote on Nov 19^th, 2014 at 8:43pm:

You claimed the vast majority of Australians support a ban on criticising or mocking religion. This is the BS that you build on to make this case

Nothing demonstrates FD's expert deflection and obfuscation quite better than this.

He will hold on to this claim of mine with both teeth and never let go. Even though it is completely irrelevant to the issue - indeed because it is completely irrelevant to the issue. It is a perfect device to keep the discussion away from the only salient point - namely that "this case" he claims hinges on this irrelevant claim of mine, in fact hinges on the fact that he has no evidence that mainstream muslims are any different to mainstream Australians, and all attempts to provide evidence have been woeful failures. One of the more hilarious examples has been citing what I write as apparently reflective of what muslims think (gandalf hates freedom - therefore Australian muslims hate freedom) - despite the fact that he has spent the last couple of years tirelessly arguing how gandalf is so unrepresentative of the Australian muslim community  ;D

Exhibit A:


freediver wrote on Nov 15^th, 2014 at 8:22am:

I obviously don't expect to have much luck explaining anything else to you while you still believe that the vast majority of Australians want the government to ban criticism or mockery of religion. Hence my unwillingness to simply 'move on' as you demand.

You can hardly be unrepresentative of the Muslim community, G. You’re a Muslim. You follow the example of your sinister prophet. This makes Muslims paedophiles, mass murderers, and torturers of Jews for their gold.

And okay, you mightn’t have actually done this yet, but you want to. After all, you’re a Muslim, a follower of Islam. Any dalliance with ideas of Freeedom or demokracy is just a cunning ruse, carefully calculated to get decent white people to lower their guard.

Google: Taqiyya.

No, G, you’re completely representative, and if you’re not, FD will make you representative. As a Muslim, you’re the new Abu.

And as an apologist, I’m the new 2007 FD.

There are no small roles, G, only small actors.

All the world’s a stage, no?

FD wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

ou can hardly be unrepresentative of the Muslim community, G. You’re a Muslim. You follow the example of your sinister prophet. This makes Muslims paedophiles, mass murderers, and torturers of Jews for their gold. And okay, you mightn’t have actually done this yet, but you want to. After all, you’re a Muslim, a follower of Islam. Any dalliance with ideas of Freeedom or demokracy is just a cunning ruse, carefully calculated to get decent white people to lower their guard.

Well that is true.

Poor FD can't figure out if I'm just a confused ignorant muslim who can't properly reconcile the evil of his sinister prophet with his his naive progressive ideas, or a genuine true-blue taqqiya practicing muslim who constantly sets out to confuse people and muddy the waters in order to conceal the true nature of islam. He constantly flips from one to the other.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 9:49am:

FD wrote on Nov 20th, 2014 at 8:44am: FD, do you stand by your support of Herbie’s claim that, after we get rid of the Muslims, the blacks will be next? I hope you can answer this, given you started a thread about it. Nonsense K - people who mock islam are not thinking about race at all - even when they are the first ones to bring it up.

Are you suggesting it is my fault you made this absurd claim that Islamophobia always has been and always will be about race? Is it my fault you started going on about white privilege?

How's that for sticking to the topic Gandalf?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 10:40am:

FD wrote on Nov 20th, 2014 at 10:21am: ou can hardly be unrepresentative of the Muslim community, G. You’re a Muslim. You follow the example of your sinister prophet. This makes Muslims paedophiles, mass murderers, and torturers of Jews for their gold. And okay, you mightn’t have actually done this yet, but you want to. After all, you’re a Muslim, a follower of Islam. Any dalliance with ideas of Freeedom or demokracy is just a cunning ruse, carefully calculated to get decent white people to lower their guard. Well that is true. Poor FD can't figure out if I'm just a confused ignorant muslim who can't properly reconcile the evil of his sinister prophet with his his naive progressive ideas, or a genuine true-blue taqqiya practicing muslim who constantly sets out to confuse people and muddy the waters in order to conceal the true nature of islam. He constantly flips from one to the other.

Stupid or mendacious? Mendacious or stupid?

Questions, questions.

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 12:40pm:

Are you suggesting it is my fault you made this absurd claim that Islamophobia always has been and always will be about race?

Good heavens, FD, how could it possibly be about race? It's about decent white people and their Freeeedom. Allow me to quote an eminent member of the board:


freediver wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:11pm:

Meanwhile, the good Muslims are on here explaining why they cannot tolerate white people having freedom of speech, in case they mock Muhammed.

If you ask me, he should have asked this one as a question.

freediver wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 12:40pm:

Are you suggesting it is my fault you made this absurd claim that Islamophobia always has been and always will be about race?

It is your fault for turning this into an issue about race - yes. It was your fault that I called you out on your racist comment when no one else had mentioned race - yes. You seem to have difficulty with this basic point that you were the first to bring it up - not me:


freediver wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:11pm:

Meanwhile, the good Muslims are on here explaining why they cannot tolerate white people having freedom of speech, in case they mock Muhammed.

To complete the sentence in your thread title:

Islamophobia all about racism... because the islamophobes keep bringing up race

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 1:43pm:

Islamophobia all about racism... because the islamophobes keep bringing up race

Yes, but why can't decent white people bring up race in order to offend the Muselman?

Surely this is FD's right in a civilised society. I, for one, would fight to the death for FD's right to mock and criticize the tinted races.

Those Taqiyya-practicing Moslems just don't understand Freeedom.

FD wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 1:07pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20th, 2014 at 10:40am: FD wrote on Nov 20th, 2014 at 10:21am: ou can hardly be unrepresentative of the Muslim community, G. You’re a Muslim. You follow the example of your sinister prophet. This makes Muslims paedophiles, mass murderers, and torturers of Jews for their gold. And okay, you mightn’t have actually done this yet, but you want to. After all, you’re a Muslim, a follower of Islam. Any dalliance with ideas of Freeedom or demokracy is just a cunning ruse, carefully calculated to get decent white people to lower their guard. Well that is true. Poor FD can't figure out if I'm just a confused ignorant muslim who can't properly reconcile the evil of his sinister prophet with his his naive progressive ideas, or a genuine true-blue taqqiya practicing muslim who constantly sets out to confuse people and muddy the waters in order to conceal the true nature of islam. He constantly flips from one to the other. Stupid or mendacious? Mendacious or stupid? Questions, questions.

I think it's both.

If Muslims were really that hot for open and free inquiry, wherever it may lead, they would have constituted many, many such societies.  But they haven't. Every single society they have constituted is repressive of ideas, open inquiry and open criticism to various degrees, from severe to medium. The more Islamic a society, the more severe the suppression of free and open enquiry, dialogues, criticism etc.


The only open and free societies today are the ones that are either 1/grown out of European Protestant Christianity (or Judaism, ie Israel) or 2/ had such models imposed on them (Japan) or have adopted such models to a very large degree (Korea, Hong Kong, Singapore).

FD wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 1:54pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20th, 2014 at 1:43pm: Islamophobia all about racism... because the islamophobes keep bringing up race Yes, but why can't decent white people bring up race in order to offend the Muselman? Surely this is FD's right in a civilised society. I, for one, would fight to the death for FD's right to mock and criticize the tinted races. Those Taqiyya-practicing Moslems just don't understand Freeedom.

I zink you vill find zat many of zee people zat look white are an entirely different people. Zis will become clear to us over zee coming decades.

FD wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 10:21am:

You can hardly be unrepresentative of the Muslim community, G. You’re a Muslim. You follow the example of your sinister prophet. This makes Muslims paedophiles, mass murderers, and torturers of Jews for their gold. And okay, you mightn’t have actually done this yet, but you want to. After all, you’re a Muslim, a follower of Islam. Any dalliance with ideas of Freeedom or demokracy is just a cunning ruse, carefully calculated to get decent white people to lower their guard. Google: Taqiyya. No, G, you’re completely representative, and if you’re not, FD will make you representative. As a Muslim, you’re the new Abu. And as an apologist, I’m the new 2007 FD. There are no small roles, G, only small actors. All the world’s a stage, no?

I find many off your sentiments extremely concerning.

az I haff alllready stated, muslims have many fine qualities which may be employed to our advantage.

Vee can not afford to become embroiled in zees petty disputes between foriegners over illgotten gold

DifferentFrequency wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 7:04pm:

FD wrote on Nov 20th, 2014 at 1:54pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20th, 2014 at 1:43pm: Islamophobia all about racism... because the islamophobes keep bringing up race Yes, but why can't decent white people bring up race in order to offend the Muselman? Surely this is FD's right in a civilised society. I, for one, would fight to the death for FD's right to mock and criticize the tinted races. Those Taqiyya-practicing Moslems just don't understand Freeedom. I zink you vill find zat many of zee people zat look white are an entirely different people. Zis will become clear to us over zee coming decades.

I agree, Different. Look at me, a grinning tinted PB.

I mean, I’ve never been to.Pakistan in my life, but if you met me, you’d swear I was the nephew and personal.assistant to Ahmad Ghulam Bilour, Pakistani Railways Minister.

Nice work if you can get it, no?

FD wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 8:13pm:

DifferentFrequency wrote on Nov 20th, 2014 at 7:04pm: FD wrote on Nov 20th, 2014 at 1:54pm: polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20th, 2014 at 1:43pm: Islamophobia all about racism... because the islamophobes keep bringing up race Yes, but why can't decent white people bring up race in order to offend the Muselman? Surely this is FD's right in a civilised society. I, for one, would fight to the death for FD's right to mock and criticize the tinted races. Those Taqiyya-practicing Moslems just don't understand Freeedom. I zink you vill find zat many of zee people zat look white are an entirely different people. Zis will become clear to us over zee coming decades. I agree, Different. Look at me, a grinning tinted PB. I mean, I’ve never been to.Pakistan in my life, but if you met me, you’d swear I was the nephew and personal.assistant to Ahmad Ghulam Bilour, Pakistani Railways Minister. Nice work if you can get it, no?

Perhaps it's mien tenuous grasp of English but I vind I am  having difficulty following yoor mode of speech.

howeffa, I vind it highly unlikely zat jou are ethnically Pakistani, gifen your obserfable passions.

Passions? Good heavens, we’re British.

We prefer to leave the passions to the cheese-fanciers, thank you very much.

Miam miam.

FD wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 8:39pm:

We prefer to leave the passions to the cheese-fanciers, thank you very much.

And the pasta-lovers.


DifferentFrequency wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 8:34pm:

howeffa, I vind it highly unlikely zat jou are ethnically Pakistani, gifen your obserfable passions.

They're not directed to goats?

Case closed.


polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 2:21pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 20th, 2014 at 12:45pm: There is one thread about your claim that Islamophobia always has been and always will be about race. Yes, that would be when you brought up race when no one else had, and me pointing out that islamophobia always has and always will be about race - because islamophobes continually keep bringing it up - like you did.

Quote:

It is your fault for turning this into an issue about race - yes.

Because I started a thread about race?


Quote:

It was your fault that I called you out on your racist comment when no one else had mentioned race - yes.

You have admitted that your complaints about the "privileged strata" promoting freedom of speech was indeed a reference to people who "just happen to be" white. And straight and male of course - because we all know gay people and women have no reason to complain about Islam.

You did not "call me out on my racist comment". You claimed that Islamophobia always has been and always will be about race. Can you tell the difference? Are you trying to blame me for your idiotic claim? Did I somehow trick you into making it by mentioning race once, leading you to believe I go on about it all the time?


Quote:

Islamophobia all about racism... because the islamophobes keep bringing up race

How often do I bring it up? Let me count the times - once, in response to you making a thinly veiled reference to race.

Do you actually believe that Islamophobia always has been and always will be about race? Did you only realise this after I used the term 'white'? What other backwards beliefs do you harbour, that you are waiting for an opportune time to reveal and blame on someone else?

freediver wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 8:41am:

You have admitted that your complaints about the "privileged strata" promoting freedom of speech was indeed a reference to people who "just happen to be" white.

The fact that most of your ilk just happen to be white doesn't make it an issue about race. Its an issue about saying extremist and stupid things, and that could come from anyone - white, black, yellow or orange skinned.


freediver wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 8:41am:

You did not "call me out on my racist comment". You claimed that Islamophobia always has been and always will be about race.

Apparently it is about race - because you brought it up when no one else was even thinking about it. Do you stand by your statement that this is about the big bad muslims out to stop "white people" from having their freedoms?


freediver wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 8:41am:

Are you trying to blame me for your idiotic claim?

No, I blame you for your own idiotic claim:


freediver wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:11pm:

Meanwhile, the good Muslims are on here explaining why they cannot tolerate white people having freedom of speech, in case they mock Muhammed.

You did this all by your little self FD.

Actually, I blame Islam. Just think, without all the good Muslims on here trying to silence and intimidate decent white people,  FD would have so much free time to invest in bettering his ilk.

But no. Instead, FD must spent most of his time questioning and exposing Muslims and their apologists. It’s a tragic waste of manpower, and if it wasn’t for Islam, FD could be fighting for the Freeeedom of decent white people everywhere.

FD wrote on Nov 20^th, 2014 at 8:39pm:

Passions? Good heavens, we’re British.

Well, not you, obviously, Paki "ten rupee gimme' Bvgger.

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2014 at 7:48pm:

FD wrote on Nov 20th, 2014 at 8:39pm: Passions? Good heavens, we’re British. Well, not you, obviously, Paki "ten rupee gimme' Bvgger.

Now now, old boy. I’ll happily deposit ten rupees in your slot, but only if you stay still, keep quiet and stop biting.

Quote:

Apparently it is about race - because you brought it up when no one else was even thinking about it.

Are you trying to backpedal now Gandalf? Do you actually believe this?


Quote:

Islamophobia always has and always will be about "race" White muslims don't get picked on - unless they have highly visible "racial" markers (hijab, muslim robe etc).

Quote:

No, I blame you for your own idiotic claim:

OK, allow me to rephrase.

Meanwhile, the good Muslims are on here explaining why they cannot tolerate people who just happen to be white having freedom of speech, in case they mock Muhammed.

Happy now? Does this mean Islamophobia is no longer about race, always, absolutely, never ever?

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 7:13am:

Are you trying to backpedal now Gandalf? Do you actually believe this?

I said that in response to your white people statement.

Islamophobia is about race because islamophobes keep brining it up FIRST - like this:


freediver wrote on Nov 16^th, 2014 at 4:11pm:

Meanwhile, the good Muslims are on here explaining why they cannot tolerate white people having freedom of speech, in case they mock Muhammed.

This is what you said Gandalf:


Quote:

Islamophobia always has and always will be about "race" White muslims don't get picked on - unless they have highly visible "racial" markers (hijab, muslim robe etc).

Perhaps you are having difficulty with the language barrier. Can you explain how the truth of this statement depends on one single comment from me?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 8:18am:

freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 7:39am: You already admitted that you made a thinly veiled reference to a privileged strata in our society It wasn't thinly veiled at all - it was very explicit. And it had nothing to do with race. Having a population that is 70%+ white makes a lot of socio-economic groups consist predominantly of people "who just happen to be white" - including many underprivileged groups, but being "white" isn't the determining factor. So the issue has nothing to do with race or muslims who "cannot tolerate white people having freedom of speech" - you made that up all by your little self, and so you just prove that islamophobia is always about race.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 8:16am:

Can you explain how the truth of this statement depends on one single comment from me?

You bringing up race when no one else had seemed an appropriate segue for me to point out that islamophobia is always about race.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 9:02am:

freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 8:16am: Can you explain how the truth of this statement depends on one single comment from me? You bringing up race when no one else had seemed an appropriate segue for me to point out that islamophobia is always about race.

Well, I like many others I expect, have become lost in the argy bargy, how about you both post where you reckon the other one introduced race, and not just the quote as you have been doing but the link so it can be viewed and its antecedents.

well D I believe I've quoted it about 10 times in the last 24 hours. Feel free to find it - probably on this very page.

Also. FD is not disputing who said it first. He just seems to have great difficulty understanding why making an idiotic racist comment about muslims out of the blue - like he did - would prompt someone to point out that islamophobia is about race.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 9:19am:

well D I believe I've quoted it about 10 times in the last 24 hours. Feel free to find it - probably on this very page. Also. FD is not disputing who said it first. He just seems to have great difficulty understanding why making an idiotic racist comment about muslims out of the blue - like he did - would prompt someone to point out that islamophobia is about race.

Should be easy enough for you to find then, with the link eh?  No skin off my nose if you decide it is all too hard, but gotta tell you, it ain't a good look for you.  As for not disputing who said it first, what a joke, you have both been pointing fingers. 

I just wanted to see the genesis of this crapfest and decide for myself who first introduced race.

DL, check the opening post.


polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 9:02am:

freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 8:16am: Can you explain how the truth of this statement depends on one single comment from me? You bringing up race when no one else had seemed an appropriate segue for me to point out that islamophobia is always about race.

Can you justify your claim without referring to my comment?

Still no links or quote.  I take it neither one of you can post the quote with the link where you say the other one first introduced race then? 

Datalife, I don't give a flying f _uck if you are incapable of looking at the one quote that has dominated this thread. No skin off my nose. Like I said, not even FD is disputing the order of who said what, so you're obviously missing the point.


freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 9:57am:

Can you justify your claim without referring to my comment?

Sure, the quote Herb posted on the first page.

Suggest you look up the works of Scott Poynting and other social researchers regarding the indisputable link between islamophobia and race in the west.

Quote:

Like I said, not even FD is disputing the order of who said what,

I dispute your claim that I brought it up "out of the blue".


Quote:

Suggest you look up the works of Scott Poynting and other social researchers regarding the indisputable link between islamophobia and race in the west.

Ah, so this is one of those ideas that takes a lot of research to believe and overcome the barriers of common sense? Do any of this 'social researchers' claim that Islamophobia always has been and always will be about race?

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 10:31am:

Do any of this 'social researchers' claim that Islamophobia always has been and always will be about race?

Of course, but feel free to read them yourself - since I know enlightening yourself with informed and objective research on issues related to muslims is a great passion of yours.

Can you quote one of them?

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 10:24am:

Datalife, I don't give a flying f _uck if you are incapable of looking at the one quote that has dominated this thread. No skin off my nose. Like I said, not even FD is disputing the order of who said what, so you're obviously missing the point. freediver wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 9:57am: Can you justify your claim without referring to my comment? Sure, the quote Herb posted on the first page. Suggest you look up the works of Scott Poynting and other social researchers regarding the indisputable link between islamophobia and race in the west.

I asked, and I thought politely, for the quote including the reference so I can see for myself who first introduced race and its antecedents. 

I can see that small request is beyond your scope, no matter.  No need to get angry.  I didn't think it was that onerous a request.

I politely pointed you in the right direction. Sorry if this was a little too much for you.

polite_gandalf wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:29am:

I politely pointed you in the right direction. Sorry if this was a little too much for you.

Why are you avoiding posting the reference?   I  can read the quote, I want to see its genesisand the antecedents so I can decide for myself who first introduced race.  I thought I had explained that clearly several times now. 

If you cannot find the original source of where freediver first, according to you, introduced race, or for your own reasons prefer not to, well and good, but don't keep pretending you have provided me with the information I requested and playing up that it is somehow my failing.

Gandalf mentioned in one of the freedom of speech threads that he was intolerant of the "privileged strata" in our society promoting an open market place of ideas. I took this to mean white people and said so, which prompted Gandalf to segue into his previously unrevealed belief that Islamophobia always has been and always will be about racism. Anyway, I was apparently mistaken, as Gandalf did not mean "white people", but rather "people who just happen to be white".

I think all three quotes are in the OP. Naturally, Gandalf is reluctant to go into the details, as they undermine his complaint that I brought up race "out of the blue" and somehow tricked him into ranting across several threads about white privilege.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 10:31am:

Quote: Like I said, not even FD is disputing the order of who said what, I dispute your claim that I brought it up "out of the blue". [quote]Suggest you look up the works of Scott Poynting and other social researchers regarding the indisputable link between islamophobia and race in the west.

Ah, so this is one of those ideas that takes a lot of research to believe and overcome the barriers of common sense? Do any of this 'social researchers' claim that Islamophobia always has been and always will be about race?[/quote]

FD, you yourself claimed it was all about race when you let it slip that Muslims want to take away the Freeeedom of decent white people.

And you have no argument from the old boys, Herbies, Sprintcyclists and all the rest. They’re very specific that this is all about race, and you’re the only one struggling to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

We’re all friends here, you know. No one’s going to think any less of you for owning up to what you truly feel.

You’ve already said what you think. Why try to cover it up in ever-expanding excuses and justifications?

If you don’t like dirty, tinted Muslims, just admit it. Isn’t this the Freeedom you’re defending for white people?

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 12:42pm:

Gandalf mentioned in one of the freedom of speech threads that he was intolerant of the "privileged strata" in our society promoting an open market place of ideas. I took this to mean white people

This is FD convincing everyone he's definitey not preoccupied thinking about race when talking about muslims.

freediver wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 12:42pm:

Gandalf mentioned in one of the freedom of speech threads that he was intolerant of the "privileged strata" in our society promoting an open market place of ideas. I took this to mean white people and said so, which prompted Gandalf to segue into his previously unrevealed belief that Islamophobia always has been and always will be about racism. Anyway, I was apparently mistaken, as Gandalf did not mean "white people", but rather "people who just happen to be white". I think all three quotes are in the OP. Naturally, Gandalf is reluctant to go into the details, as they undermine his complaint that I brought up race "out of the blue" and somehow tricked him into ranting across several threads about white privilege.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2009-09-01.jpg


http://www.jesusandmo.net/strips/2011-11-09.png

Marvellous stuff, old boy, very droll.

Your Punch quip reads like an FD post.

FD wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:31pm:

xxxxxxx stuff, old boy, very xxxxxxx. Your xxxxxx xxxreads like xxxxx post.

What?

You have been Islamically censored, PB.

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2014 at 11:42pm:

FD wrote on Nov 22nd, 2014 at 11:31pm: xxxxxxx stuff, old boy, very xxxxxxx. Your xxxxxx xxxreads like xxxxx post. What? You have been Islamically censored, PB.

Forget Islamically censored. The ones you've got to worry about are the ones who censor themselves.