AreaSIX

“Goddamn it! I don’t know how to express myself unless through anger and personal attacks!”

You assumed she was muslim because she’s Iranian, I assumed she wasn’t because she was being bigoted against muslim women., which was the point of the article What you did is the equivalent of assuming Ayaan Hirsi Ali is Muslim because she’s Somali, ignoring that she’s made it her brand to vilify Islam.

Regarding the ridiculous comparison to gender: gender isn’t connected to nationality, which is the point we were discussing. Furthermore, I think most people would consider it reasonable to assume a person attacking trans people for being trans isn’t trans themselves. That you have trouble making this connection is the issue I have been criticizing all along.

Regarding what I comment on other people’s comments or don’t, you’re just reaching and it’s getting sad. It’s none of your business at all what I comment on, and no amount of nagging on your end has an impact on that decision. Either respond and defend your position or don’t. Beyond that is none of your business.

I did not change my tone in any of the comments I wrote, and it’s obvious to the people reading the exchange. It’s funny that you call it “returning to civility”, but whatever helps you cope I guess.

You literally wrote there’s no reason to believe she’s not a muslim herself. It’s still up there in your comment. If that’s not assuming then what is?

You do whatever you need to do. Again, it’s clear what I wrote and I stand by it. There’s nothing uncivil about what I wrote, that’s clear to all who read it. I don’t need one more opportunity, if you consider criticism and questioning of your ideas disrespectful, that’s your prerogative. So stop trying to threaten me into silence and do whatever you need to do in order to avoid examining your own biases.

I don’t ‘hate’ you, you’re just a commenter on Lemmy. I pointed out the obvious bigotry in your assumption of the woman being Muslim because she’s Iranian, despite the article making it clear she was harassing Muslim women. And you have done absolutely zero to dispell that conclusion. Assuming that my criticism is ‘hate’ just makes it clear that you’re unwilling to examine your own ideas from a critical perspective. Criticizing the civility of my comments reinforces the same conclusion. I’ve been very matter of fact, criticizing the substance of what you’ve written. I haven’t made any personal attacks as far as I can see. But you just keep doing the holier than thou thing.

Pointing to other bigoted comments doesn’t change the bigotry in your assumption, it just points to even more bigoted assumptions. Yeah, yours is more nuanced, but a more nuanced bigotry doesn’t mean it’s not bigotry.

Again, you assumed an Iranian woman is Muslim despite the article making it clear she was being bigoted against other muslim women. Ask yourself why you made that assumption if not because in your view, Iranian=muslim.

You can hide behind whatever rule you’d like. I’ve been more civil in my replies than your remarks call for. And it’s pretty clear in my unedited comments for everyone to see. Knock yourself out with whatever rule you need to hide behind, in order to avoid having an honest look at your own beliefs and biases.

Do you have any other reason than the woman being Iranian for your remark that there’s no reason to believe she’s not a muslim? You don’t, so my comment stands. You decided that she being Iranian is a good reason to assume she’s Muslim, despite the article saying she was attacking Muslim women. We both know why, so stop clutching your pearls and have look at your own assumptions.

There is no reason to believe that this woman is not herself a Muslim.

What is Muslim to you? This is a prime example for how western people see Islam as a race, and therefore people from Iran are automatically classified as muslim.

There’s a very good reason to believe that this woman is not a muslim, and that’s the whole purpose of the article: she’s harassing Muslim women for the sole reason that they wear a piece of clothing showing that they’re Muslim. That you are unable to recognize this as what it clearly is, anti Muslim bigotry, is revealing your own bias against Muslims.

Jesus brother/sister, come down. Most people on Reddit are like most people everywhere, regular normal people with an extra dollop of asshole because they can hide behind a handle online. Many probably don’t know about other alternatives, or find the somewhat convoluted sign up processes to be intimidating. Or they sign up and don’t find the content all that varied or interesting. God knows I’ve been tempted to go back from time to time, but I refuse to use the garbage they call an official app. Drugged up lost causes with an insatiable need to be righteous seems like a somewhat drastic judgement to me. Unless you think that of people in general, in which case yes, they are like people in general.

You’re equating Jews with Israel, so you’re basically on the same moral level as Israel and deserve just as much respect. So, fuck you.

Notice the gradual shift from an international order based on international law to the current “rules-based” international order that has happened during the last 2 decades? The ICJ is an arbiter of international law while the rules-based order is based on arbitrary rules made by the US and mostly NATO allies not necessarily related to international law. This shift was designed for situations like this where adherence to these arbitrary rules can be used to override/ignore international law. So when the highest court in the world when it comes to international law rules that the case brought by SA has clear merit, the US can punish SA for bringing the case in the first place and pretend that’s by the rules.

Red army’s stationed in Berlin at the end of WWII, but Sweden doesn’t consider that a big enough threat to join NATO. Russian army is now in eastern Ukraine, which would’ve been deep within the Soviet Union at the end of the WW, and suddenly we have to join NATO to keep safe. You know, protect ourselves against imperialism by joining the chief imperialist block and give the top imperialists access to 17 military bases on our soil. We’ve become so pathetic compared to the swedes from the fifties. They valued true independence, we gargle uncle Sam’s balls instead to feel safe. Sweden was uniquely independent, we’re now in alliance with Turkey and the US. That’s quite a fall from grace and it makes me sad. Like I’m losing what made my country special.

You literally wrote most south east Asian cultures are deeply pretentious. Having a Thai partner doesn’t somehow magically make you an authority on a region with close to 700 million people. You’re grouping together countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Burma and Singapore and calling them deeply pretentious. Bringing up a Thai partner to demonstrate some kind of authority in the matter fits perfectly in with the rest of it. I don’t have any issues believing you have a Thai partner and have spoken to many Thais. My issue again is with you thinking that fact gives you the authority to casually judge a region of 700 million people as deeply pretentious. And then doubling down.

The equivalent to the legalization of cannabis making people think of Thailand as a 'junkie nation’s would be the rampant sex tourism making people think of Thailand as a paedo nation. And they’ve been fine with that for decades. So I very much doubt that it’s because “south east Asian cultures” are “deeply pretentious”. Also, just grouping hundreds of millions of people from vastly different cultures together as monolithic and “deeply pretentious” ironically says more about your own levels of deep pretension than about south east Asian cultures

Iran is a multi-ethnic society. What ethnicity is the ethno-state you imagine centered on? Persians? You know that General Soleimani wasn’t a Persian? Or that Iran’s supreme leader is an Azeri Turk? Or that the merchant class of Iran is not centered on Persians? How is this an ethno-state? Zionists sure like projection it seems…

I think it’s pretty clear that they just wanted to 'scream and shout at the people’s like the researcher in the article says. A herd of angry elephants looking to do actual damage would have easily crushed that car if they wanted to. This was just a warning, as the calf turned out to be fine.

I beg to differ. That’s only true for the human Brian, my friend’s dog Brian is a very sharp fella.

Next up to freeze: Google’s unholy war on ad-blockers. A decisive blow to that would make this a holy trilogy 😄

Fortunately, there are some very good historical examples of how and why you’re very wrong. Maybe you’re not the best example of what one would do under such circumstances.

You keep replying to people rephrasing the same dumb lie. No, the majority of Australians clearly don’t support an advisory body, as demonstrated by the vote being discussed. The fake nuance you try to apply to the vote is transparent and it’s fooling no one. A majority of Australians are racist against the native population, and that’s painfully obvious to anyone who’s spent time there. A beautiful country, but the racism is absolutely blatant. You just refuse to acknowledge that.

Heard a lot of shit Iran’s supposed to be involved with in the region, but it’s the first time I hear them being accused of having engineered the Israel -Palestine conflict. How do you figure that? I would’ve understood accusing France for their involvement in sykes-picot, or even the Turks since the Ottomans administered the region in early 20th century. But Iran started supporting the Palestinians after the 1979 revolution, before that the Shah very much supported Israel. So I have a hard time seeing how they could be blamed for engineering the conflict.