Sri Lanka massacres

mmj_uk said:
Christians are offensive to Muslims and therefore it's Islamophobic to mention them. Political Correctness 101.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And don't forget, it triggers the usual brigade of Islamapologists if you dare say anything that criticises Islam/Muslims, even the ones that walk into Churches and detonate suicide vests.
 
Dis86 said:
They were, and both called that out in their tweets. Obama for example said "The attacks on tourists and Easter worshippers". So clearly, the hotel/restaurant point is irrelevant in that regard as they weren't being grouped in with the others.



True, but could you explain who else might have been celebrating in those churches that day? The locations attacked. Was it Jews? Buddhists? Hindus? Pastafarians? No, no it wasn't. It was one group with a shared identity.
I bet they certainly don't refer to themselves as "Easter worshippers'. In fact, strangely, they actually have a widely used term. Oh yes, Christians.

Actually, does this mean because some people are clearly offended by it that the mods will now ban the term 'Easter Worshippers' like they did 'Person of Colour'?
Click to expand...
Good point, I am a Christian and do actually find this ridiculous new term 'Easter Worshipper' quite offensive.
 
Dis86 said:
Actually, does this mean because some people are clearly offended by it that the mods will now ban the term 'Easter Worshippers' like they did 'Person of Colour'?
Click to expand...

Wait what? Since when is "person of colour" banned? That's a politically correct term.
 
Dis86 said:
If I go to church on Thursday am I a Thursday worshipper?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that be a Thursday-worshipper rather than a Thursday worshipper?

I have vague recollections of my O level English teacher explain the grammatical differences when using hyphens with the example between a dog lover (someone who loves dogs) and a dog-lover...and not to mix the two ;):p
 
dowie said:
Wait what? Since when is "person of colour" banned? That's a politically correct term.
Click to expand...

You're telling me! I tried to explain that but was told that I was wrong, despite providing multiple links and dictionary definitions. I was told it doesn't matter and that if they decide it's offensive, it's offensive.
 
Malevolence said:
Exactly. And don't forget, it triggers the usual brigade of Islamapologists if you dare say anything that criticises Islam/Muslims, even the ones that walk into Churches and detonate suicide vests.
Click to expand...

Political correctness personified. Islamapologists everywhere in the left wing and liberal world of media and celebrity personal. It’s a bit of a joke really. One way street.
 
Freakbro said:
Wouldn't that be a Thursday-worshipper rather than a Thursday worshipper?

I have vague recollections of my O level English teacher explain the grammatical differences when using hyphens with the example between a dog lover (someone who loves dogs) and a dog-lover...and not to mix the two ;):p
Click to expand...

Hmm...I'd say no as the example playing in my mind was Satan worshipper. No hyphenation is required.
 
McstylisT said:
Political correctness personified. Islamapologists everywhere in the left wing and liberal world of media and celebrity personal. It’s a bit of a joke really. One way street.
Click to expand...

What about the ‘islamapologists’ on the right? The ones who happily vote for governments to support Saudi terror and thus the entire reason it’s so well funded?

Nah let’s ignore that cos muh libruls.
 
StriderX said:
What about the ‘islamapologists’ on the right? The ones who happily vote for governments to support Saudi terror and thus the entire reason it’s so well funded?

Nah let’s ignore that cos muh libruls.
Click to expand...
Lul wut? Show me the party manifesto that said that.

And both Labour and Tories were/are in bed with the Saudis.
 
StriderX said:
What about the ‘islamapologists’ on the right? The ones who happily vote for governments to support Saudi terror and thus the entire reason it’s so well funded?

Nah let’s ignore that cos muh libruls.
Click to expand...

Islamapologist is people who will not say a bad word about the, whatever They do. Even though I agree with you with parts of the right, they are not protecting them or apologising them as such. Which was the point of my reply to an earlier post.
 
Apparently Sri Lankans are being fined heavily for using a VPN at this time.

"The current situation is sri lanka! They r finning 10000lkr(~$60) for using vpn! Pray for sri lanka"

a6-O85j-L-460swp.png
 
terley said:
Apparently Sri Lankans are being fined heavily for using a VPN at this time.

"The current situation is sri lanka! They r finning 10000lkr(~$60) for using vpn! Pray for sri lanka"

a6-O85j-L-460swp.png
Click to expand...

It’s called ‘reducing the damage from unsubstantiated reports’. India, Pakistan and probably all surrounding countries have a massive fake news problem.

As long as it’s limited in scope I don’t see the danger considering the potential danger of leaving it open. That said you also reduce the ability of the public to help forces, so it’s not great.
 
StriderX said:
It’s called ‘reducing the damage from unsubstantiated reports’. India, Pakistan and probably all surrounding countries have a massive fake news problem.

As long as it’s limited in scope I don’t see the danger considering the potential danger of leaving it open. That said you also reduce the ability of the public to help forces, so it’s not great.
Click to expand...
Consider me unsurprised that you'd be fine with such a measure.
 
To be fair Sri Lanka has a "fake news" on social media system which is a million times worse than ours and now has an angry section of the population who react with violence more quickly than we do, so while I disagree with a ban in a perfect world, in the real one sadly I can see why the ban is in place until tempers settle.
 
Angilion said:
What's wrong with them? They're religious. They too are practising their faith.

Religion is utterly amoral and almost(*) all religions are extremely political, highly authoritarian and extremely geared towards obtaining power. The Abrahamic religions are the worst for that and Islam is the worst of the Abrahamic religions for that. Islam was created specifically for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining absolute power by fear and violence (and was and is very successful at that). The idea that it's incomprehensible that there are Muslims who are practicing their faith in the way it was created for and for the reason it was created for is weird. There are plenty of Muslims who impose their own morality on their religion and are decent people, but that's in spite of their religion and not because of it. Christianity is about as power-hungry, but it was created for the purpose of obtaining and maintaining absolute power by more subtle political manipulation. Same goal, different methods and there's a lot of crossover.


* I'm being generous by including the word "almost", allowing for the possibility of some minor religion or religions that aren't like that. Aboriginal Australian ones, maybe. If their mythologies are a religion.
Click to expand...

The problem with what you have written is this odd underlying assumption that without religion there would be an absence of all those things you consider bad.
I think "manipulation" and "authoritarianism" are omnipresent in our present godless hellhole of a society.
 
Tosno said:
The problem with what you have written is this odd underlying assumption that without religion there would be an absence of all those things you consider bad.
I think "manipulation" and "authoritarianism" are omnipresent in our present godless hellhole of a society.
Click to expand...

Godless? The vast majority of the planet believes in a god. You are incorrect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom