Comments

The submission is locked. You cannot post new comments.

9

Pop wrote (edited )

The site doesn't

There's a difference between
having a problem with abusive hierarchical religious institutions that mediate (and bureaucratise and abuse) our relationship between ourselves and whatever spiritual leanings we may have
and
acting against religious people as part of a global or regional system of opression against those people

most people here probably generally want to destroy (especially institutionalised) religion? but we want to destroy antisemitism, islamophobia, and other shitbag anti-religious views that similarly use relative positions of power to maintain oppressive frameworks against people

4

____deleted____ wrote

I didn't see any rule about that.

Also, many of us such as I are far from traditional Marxism.

-3

gonnagetbanned wrote

It's in the T&Cs, no critique of religion allowed basically.

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

w/terms_of_service:


Content is prohibited if it

Promotes white supremacy, homophobia or heterosexism, transphobia or cisgenderism, misogyny or patriarchy, classism, ableism, body shaming, antisemitism, Islamophobia, colonialism or age discrimination.

Sexualizes minors or promotes adults having sex with minors.

Trivializes or makes light of rape.

Apologizes for police or military brutality, imperialism, eugenics, genocide.

Apologizes for violence towards children.

Is a pornographic image/video (however, nudity is permitted if it's non-pornographic).


Not sure where you're looking.

3

zombie_berkman wrote

Considering this is their only post they clearly have an issue with Muslims or Jews and concern trolling

-1

gonnagetbanned wrote

Ummm... I was born Jewish and my father was an Irani Muslim (mother Ashkenazi jew). Not sure what your logic is there mate.

-3

gonnagetbanned wrote

why is critiquing Christianity ok but not Islam or Judaism? I assumed the ToS would include Christianity as obviously these form the three main monotheistic religions..

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

Critiquing all three is welcome. Participating in systemic oppression is not. You seem to be intentionally misunderstanding what has been said here.

-1

gonnagetbanned wrote

I have defined systemic oppression below and you have chosen to ignore the definition I gave without explaining why.

So, you have accused me of "intentionally misunderstanding what has been said" when you have, intentionally or not, misunderstood the meaning of systemic oppression!

Plus, if critiquing all three is welcome, why are only two written in the ToS? You still have not replied to this, sticking only to your incorrect definition of systemic oppression.

Please don't ban me, I just want to hear your logic on this. Banning me for no reason just because you disagree with me would be mean, I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

-2

gonnagetbanned wrote (edited )

Systemic oppression "occurs when established laws, customs, and practices systematically reflect and produce inequities based on one’s membership in targeted social identity groups. If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the system is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions"

How is this systematic oppression?

0

gonnagetbanned wrote

I love how people dislike the comment without explaining why they think it's wrong. Is it correct, but you don't like it? At least just tell me if I'm saying anything false..

-3

____deleted____ wrote

Okay, fair.

antisemitism, Islamophobia,

this part concerns me too given I very much hate the main branches of most religions, from these to Christianity to Buddhism, etc.

7

Tequila_Wolf wrote

You've said a few things lately that indicate you don't know (or don't know in much depth) how systemic oppression works - please have a look into that.

Having a problem with antisemitism and islamophobia is not the same as preventing criticism of the individuals/groups/institutions involved.

-1

____deleted____ wrote

to be fair i dont know much overall im just generally a dumbass

2

sudo wrote

No no, I see what you're trying to do here. You're trying to deflect criticism against yourself by owning it. By ruthlessly deprecating yourself, you're trying to elicit a sympathetic response (something along the lines of "come now, there's no need to be so hard on yourself"). You're hoping that your opponent will take pity on you and try to comfort you, forgetting their criticisms in the process. Regardless of whether you actually think you're stupid or not, this is a manipulative tactic, and it shouldn't be used when a simple counter-argument would suffice.

I'm not trying to be unsympathetic - I think both you and the OP have made it clear that you are criticizing religions, not the people who believe in those religions. I understand the need to double-check criticisms of Judaism and Islam to ensure that they're not really racist sentiments against jews and muslims. But, I think you've shown that your criticisms aren't coming from a position of bigotry, so the continued reluctance to address these points is unnecessary. I understand that you're frustrated by this, but let's not resort to manipulation, yeah?

2

____deleted____ wrote

No, I just consistently call myself a dumbass, don't try to view it as manipulative- I've known a lot of manipulative people and would hate nothing more than to be one.

This is a consistent point I've pushed on Riot, Mastodon and other channels of communication (in reference to 'I'm a dumbass'). I can imagine it coming off such a way since I don't know you and assume vice versa is true, but I'm very consistent on this.

I want no pity and do not accept pity.

A counter-argument would not suffice because I have none; I don't know enough to make one, and generally often don't know enough to make arguments period. Over Riot I stressed a wish to get passed some resources to educate myself with, generally 'im a dumbass' is me just accepting defeat before going on to ask on easier forms of communication for ways to remedy that.

In conclusion, I am a dumbass, but I am very consistent about it.

-3

gonnagetbanned wrote

You don't know what systemic oppression is either obviously! You're ignoring the definition I gave of it entirely, because you either had no idea what it meant or thought it meant something completely different. You can't criticize people for not following a term you don't understand.

4

Dumai wrote (edited )

anti-semitism and islamophobia are hugely racialised, more overtly with anti-semitism

i mean you can criticise these religions and do just fine! just don't spout jackassed racist myths in the process. i mean if i had my way i'd also discourage wrong-headed stereotypes of how these religions are practiced (e.g. the assumption many christians and culturally christian atheists have that these religions are primarily "legalistic" faiths without much theological or spiritual content) but that probably ain't a bannable offence site-wide

edit: tho if anybody pulls that shit when talking about islam or judaism on /f/palestine_and_israel i will ban your sorry ass from the sub because you'll have only demonstrated you have no hope in hell of discussing israeli-palestinian issues intelligently. just laying my cards on the table there

3

gonnagetbanned wrote

That's still not explaining why I can say whatever I want about Christianity but not Judaism and Islam. Are you saying these two religions are better than the first one, and therefore need more protection? Are their members weaker, therefore not able to stand criticism?

I fail to understand.

Obviously not talking about "jackassed racist myths", but if I say the following: "Women can't drive yet in Saudi Arabia and it's 2018" and "It's an Islamic country, Islam being a religion which precisely describes women as inferior"

What did I say wrong? These are absolute facts, no?

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

women can drive in saudi arabia now buddy, you had one of the easiest targets in the world and you still fucked it up

Islam being a religion which precisely describes women as inferior

see this is what i mean -- you're treating islam as a static legal system rather than a living, diverse body of traditions. i'm not saying there aren't problems with misogyny in the muslim world (as there are anywhere else) but i don't suppose islamic feminist movements factor into your opinion that islam is inherently sexist

jews and muslims are both historically marginalised groups and deserve to be treated with more respect than you're giving them

1

____deleted____ wrote

Aren't all of the Abrahamic religions generally pretty sexist by default? The writings are sexist and depending on the country the sexist parts are implemented to varying degrees (this includes Christian teachings, don't take this as a roundabout 'but the muslims do it worse'. Covering myself because reading over it it could be taken that way.)

Generally, the three just pull social progress back.

2

Dumai wrote

secular subjectivities are pretty sexist

truth regimes in general are pretty sexist

if you want a radical critique of systemic sexism you're gonna have to do better than pin it on historically varied millenia-old traditions that each have gone through their respective feminist movements and are all still changing fast

i mean i come from a religious tradition (quakerism) that was affirming the inalienable equality of women by the 17th century

0

____deleted____ wrote

Oh, yeah, definitely. The trio just seem to me that they're often hand-in-hand with reactionary ideals, given my experiences with Christianity and what I've heard from friends from Morocco and Syria.

1

gonnagetbanned wrote

"The change, which will take effect in JUNE 2018, was announced in a royal decree read live on state television and in a simultaneous media event in Washington. The decision highlights the damage that the ban on women driving has done to the kingdom’s international reputation and its hopes for a public relations benefit from the reform." According to NY Times. Women can't drive till June, buddy. You had one of the easiest fact checks in the world and you still fucked it up.

Also, there is absolutely no reason why I should treat one religion with more respect than another. I'm not talking about "Jews" or "Muslims"! My father was a Muslim! I don't judge people based on their religion. I'm just saying ISLAM, compared to ALL OTHER MAJOR MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS, has a much more pejorative view on WOMEN according to the KORAN (not current practices and/or thoughts/traditions). Obviously there is also misogyny in Christianism (I mentioned this in another post with priests) but women can drive and have their faces uncovered and work and be president etc etc etc in most countries with a majority Christian population and/or non-secular Christian nations (El Salvador, eg.)

I'm not talking about "groups", I'm talking about the institutions. I never mentioned individual people. I talked about ISLAM, JUDAISM and CHRISTIANITY. What is wrong with that?

Side note: It is not my opinion that Islam is inherently sexist. If you read the Koran, line by line, you will find plenty of extremely sexist mentions that, in many parts of the world, still hold true. That is a fact.

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

okay but don't think you could have picked a more pressing women's legal issue in saudi arabia of all places over one that will literally be reversed in just over a month

It is not my opinion that Islam is inherently sexist

really

cos you could have fooled me when you said "Islam [is] a religion which precisely describes women as inferior"

but women can drive and have their faces uncovered and work and be president etc etc etc in most countries with a majority Christian population

hey here's a fun homework assignment for you. google a list of recent presidents and prime ministers for pakistan, indonesia, kyrgyzstan, bangladesh, and turkey and tell me what you notice

now again, that isn't to say misogyny ain't a huge problem is the muslim world. but i think you could afford to approach this subject with a little more nuance considering you're dealing with a religion of over 1 billion people who make a majority of 50 countries

I'm not talking about "groups", I'm talking about the institutions. I never mentioned individual people

it's great that you say so but it doesn't completely absolve you of reponsibility. there isn't that much distance between "islam is sexist" and "muslims are sexist" and from there "muslim women are too brainwashed to be a voice in their own issues" easily follows. you are perfectly welcome to criticise islamic institutions but you need to put more effort into doing so without feeding into racist discourses

0

gonnagetbanned wrote

Here's homework assignment:

Indonesia and Kyrgystan are secular nations where religion doesn't control the state therefore any information about them is irrelevant.

Turkey, which is mostly secular but not officially and where Islam is coming back by sharia, there has been only one female Prime Minister since the country's inception. And that was 20 years ago, so it seems to be getting worse.

In Pakistan, there has been one woman PM as well, and she was the daughter of the dictator in place before her, and was assassinated. LOL. She was elected again later, and suffered a coup d'etat in 1995 due to strong criticism. LOL.

I have to hand it to you, Bangladesh has had two women PMs, the same as the UK. However, Bangladesh is a "secular Islamic" state, which means it is not an islamic country either. But, it does have a majority muslim populations, so you were right in a sense. But it should be considered that their political system is based on the British one, according to many sources:

            "We don't practice Islamic Sharia laws in our court. We follow British 
              Indian laws. " - Anik Hassan, Quora

So in another sense your argument is invalidated by this.

As I have just shown, your homework assignment has done little good to your cause, sadly.

1

Dumai wrote (edited )

every country i mentioned has a muslim majority population -- you didn't just say "women can be head of state or government in officially christian countries", you also included "countries with a majority christian population". please stop changing the goal posts unless you would exclude america as an example of a largely christian country just because it is officially secular.

and once again, since reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your strong suit, i am not denying misogyny is a huge problem in the islamic world. i never said any of these countries were feminist utopias or anything. what i am saying is that there are enough examples of female muslim leaders and muslim feminist movements that you could probably do with acknowledging that the muslims who aren't misogynist are no less muslim than the ones who are

edit: oh boy nice sentence construction dumai, can u tell i wrote this hungover

1

____deleted____ wrote

jackassed racist myths in the process.

Yeah, I'll talk shit about any religions but will certainly avoid that.

1

jadedctrl wrote

I'm not religious in the slightest, but I don't get what there'd be to gain from criticizing religion. … criticizing organized & institutionalized religion is a different thing which is useful, though.

1

gonnagetbanned wrote (edited )

Well, you see, for example, women are treated horribly in the Koran, and I don't like that. In the Torah, I disprove the point that you're not allowed to eat pork as it is completely out-of-date and was written in a time when pork was dangerous and could kill if not prepared properly. In the Bible, I strongly dislike the fact that women are not allowed to be priests, and I hate the amount of pedophilia in the Catholic church today.

Why am I allowed to say the last one but not the two first ones according to the ToS?

1

selver wrote (edited )

You're allowed to say all of that under the ToS. The issue is when you start extrapolating that and making terrible arguments that are based in racism & imperialism.

Objecting to a religious text is a different discussion than the history of a religion, or the politics of a region.

3

gonnagetbanned wrote

I completely understand what you say, and I agree. However, two questions arise:

  1. Why isn't Christianity up there with the religions you can't be racist or biased against?

  2. Why then is everyone downvoting my comments that simply state objective, non-biased views on religions as a whole (and not about the people that represent them)?

I'm not asking you to answer in particular, you didn't decide these problems. But maybe someone has an answer...?

1

selver wrote (edited )

Why isn't Christianity up there with the religions you can't be racist or biased against?

The majority of the users of this site are from countries where racism against Christians doesn't really exist, while islamophobia is widespread. This is no different than the argument about anti-white racism, it's not talked about because we don't live in places with a history of enslaving & discriminating against white people. The American empire, along with other countries, stoke racist fear to justify invading other countries. Islam constantly gets tied up with race to dehumanize people in countries that are being bombed by white nations, and who are being discriminated against domestically.

You seem to be trying to start from a position that is ahistorical, completely ignoring context. Believe me, if similar issues existed for Christianity, it would be on the list. But that never actually comes up until some concern troll comes along to whine about it.

Why then is everyone downvoting my comments that simply state objective, non-biased views on religions as a whole (and not about the people that represent them)?

There's no rule saying people have to like what you're saying. You're a new user with the name "gonnagetbanned", of course people are downvoting you.

1

____deleted____ wrote

countries where racism against Christians doesn't really exist

I'd like to remind of the issues the occupied areas of Rojava suffer especially regarding Yazidis. Just a small note, I otherwise agree.

1

____deleted____ wrote

women are treated horribly in the Koran

and also the torah and also the bible

the rape law comes to mind as one major case, though i recall reading and seeing a good amount more

2

gonnagetbanned wrote

Absolutely, this is true too, but you don't see Christianism or Judaism today systemically oppressing women and not allowing them to work, study, drive, hold important positions...

1

____deleted____ wrote

In Malta, a kidnapper “after abducting a person, shall marry such person, he shall not be liable to prosecution.”

The predominant religion in Malta is that of the Catholic Church. The Constitution of Malta establishes Catholicism as the state religion and it is also reflected in various elements of Maltese culture.

-4

gonnagetbanned wrote

lol are people just gonna keep downvoting absolute facts that I post? Is that the best Raddle can do? Downvote provable facts because it doesn't like them?

I figure I've got a few hours before I get banned for saying nothing but the truth, too.

3

jadedctrl wrote

You're beating a dead horse. We know that religious texts generally have terrible BS in them, but there's really no reason to single any of them out from the rest.
You're getting downvoted, also, because for the smug attitude:

I figure I've got a few hours before I get banned for saying nothing but the truth, too.

You've done nothing TOS-violating yet, but when you do it won't just be "for saying the truth." :-P

1

gonnagetbanned wrote

  1. There is absolute reason to single out some from the rest as some are less/more strict or sexist than others; they're not all on the same scale. Eg: Jesus didn't marry an underage child of about 13 without consent.

  2. The only reason why I said that is because I've seen other people get banned(before I created an account) simply for criticizing Islam objectively.

I'm not trying to be smug or anything, and I definitely don't want to get banned, it was just sort of a passive-agressive way (I was mad, apologies) to reflect on what other people have been banned for. (Not saying this always happens at all, it's just what I've noticed on some occasions).

1

gonnagetbanned wrote

  1. There is absolute reason to single out some from the rest as some are less/more strict or sexist than others; they're not all on the same scale. Eg: Jesus didn't marry an underage child of about 13 without consent.

  2. The only reason why I said that is because I've seen other people get banned(before I created an account) simply for criticizing Islam objectively.

I'm not trying to be smug or anything, and I definitely don't want to get banned, it was just sort of a passive-agressive way (I was mad, apologies) to reflect on what other people have been banned for. (Not saying this always happens at all, it's just what I've noticed on some occasions).

-3

ETERNAL_PRISONER wrote

I also can't understand, why leftists soliderize with religious idiots. They are our ideological enemies, we should be happy every time a mosque, church or synagoge gets burned down.

1

ziq wrote (edited )

"We we we" will you stfu? You're not attached at the limb to every self declared 'leftist' and you're certainly not better than 'religious idiots' just because you've labelled yourself an atheist.

You go be happy watching other peoples places of worship burn without expecting other people to give a shit about the fucked up shit that makes you wet.

-2

ETERNAL_PRISONER wrote

Cry some more.