Comment by Gnob | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gnob | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>If you're unable to be civilized there are plenty of places where this sort of response is acceptable.

I think you are misunderstanding what being civilized means.

being civilized or not has literally nothing to have with secularism or religion, you trying to make it equal to atheism is just gaslighting.

and people are going to get out, nobody is fancying your nazi crap under "Freedom of speech". people have been getting out of france, and soon will be getting out of sweden and to hell with your freedoms. You can have all the cuckery you want, just keep it inside your borders, and we will die or find a way to live holding to our religion and dignity, and to teach our kids to do so too.

one last thing, Christianity isn't Islam, period. The Muslims didn't commit war crimes, try to ethnically cleanse people or whatnot. They lived in peace with other nations and their war ethics are far better than yours. and had peace treaties and were pretty civilized, the only difference was, they were not cucks they would defend their religion and principles and honour and would die for it.

and cuckery != civility Muslims are commanded to be civilised and well behaved, go to the nearest mosque in your area, make up a reasonable or even unreasonable question about Islam, just to see how people act, do they bark or bite or are they civilised and merely hold their beliefs very dear to their hearts, you have to check for yourself, because who knows, they might actually be savages.

I made no religious requirements for civilization only behavioral.

You can't riot when you perceive insults to you religion or ethnicity and be civilized in the west. It's not tolerated behavior. This is how we manage our multipolar societies with a variety of stakeholders.

This is a feature, just because you don't see or understand the purpose does not mean it serves no purpose.

With out this we could go back to killing catholics for their instance on synergism and semipelagianism instead of sola fide.

> You can't riot when you perceive insults to you religion or ethnicity and be civilized in the west

That...isn't consistent with observed behavior of even the historically dominant religious and ethnic groups in the US, so I guess the US is either non-Western or non-civilized.

> With out this we could go back to killing catholics for their instance on synergism and semipelagianism instead of sola fide.

Many Catholics are very much aware that the disproportionately political powerful evangelical theocrats in the US are aching to do this once they are done playing nice with gullible conservative Catholics to suppress the left, and that it wasn't that long ago that the same faction in the US spent the same energy attacking the Catholic Church as the literal tool of Satan that they now spend on the culture war topic of the day.

Do you have examples of religious or sectarian riots by historically dominant religious groups in the US in the last 50 years?

Also I don't mean to single out catholics, anabaptists and adult baptism may be a better example.

This is why in the modern west there can be no space for this behavior. It's arbitrary and in the eye of the beholder. Even in the US anabaptists have continued to schism, but we don't allow violence against sects that allow buttons on their clothing however prideful or idolatrous they maybe.

> Do you have examples of religious or sectarian riots by historically dominant religious groups in the US in the last 50 years?

For the most dramatic recent example, religious offense is one of the central grievances among the 1/6 rioters.

1/6 is an example of religious sectarian violence?

No.

>You can't riot when you perceive insults to you religion or ethnicity and be civilized in the west. It's not tolerated behavior. This is how we manage our multipolar societies with a variety of stakeholders.

I am not pro riots if they've been out of the blue like that. but I don't think any news media have mentioned the details of the escalation and I am not buying into any story the Swedish media / police / government pushes.

>This is a feature, just because you don't see or understand the purpose does not mean it serves no purpose.

I am aware a civil society doesn't work like that, but I would assume the police started the aggressive actions, in such a case I think it's justified.

because that's what people do in a civil society when the police and the government stands against them.

The same way you can get fined or taken to jail if you mock national symbols of some countries like France for example. the only difference is that the first is done by people and the second is done by the legal system, which is also people, but their actions are absolutely morally justified as being 'lawful'.

I don't condone riots unless they're systematic, don't harm innocents, and are merely done to cost the government for their actions and are a sign of protesting.

That's my personal stand on the subject and I think it's pretty much Islamic as people aren't encouraged to be chaotic or savages in Islam.

If you do wonder: How can we manage these savages? just let them alone in peace, stay respectful ( not even to them just to their religion ) and if you have any reasonable question and by any I mean literally "any" just ask it, nobody is going to attack you or hurt you by any means, quite the opposite, if you are attacked they might come and help to stop it. What's the secret sauce? you just understand that a holy book is called a holy book for a reason, and the same way you are ready to die for your values, people and nation they are ready to die for their religion.

find that so hard to do, vote to pass a bill for their mass deportation and done. or sign a petition and show them that the majority refuse them staying in the country and I think people will gladly leave, if they don't, back to the first solution.

then you can do whatever you like in your own country but please don't export your culture by any means, talk about mutual respect or human rights or draw fancy images of the west to these people, respect that end of the deal pretty well, and done. no more savages causing you any troubles.

Happy to hear you consider mass deportation a solution.

No, there is no moral justification in modern western civilization for religious or sectarian violence. We are nations of laws, the moral path is to work in the system to change the law if you feel it's unjust. Again, this is cost of admission to western civilization.

>Happy to hear you consider mass deportation a solution.

Not exactly sure if you're trying to be ironic and consider my comment as fascist of some sort or if you actually agree.

>No, there is no moral justification in modern western civilization for religious or sectarian violence. We are nations of laws, the moral path is to work in the system to change the law

The issue is, you don't have a goddamned chance to change the law if you are a Muslim, unless you're gay or pretty much an ex-Muslim atheist pretending to be a Muslim, otherwise you fall under the "fundamentalist" definition and not a chance in hell you will have ANY important enough political position to be able to change the law. Sorry, doesn't work like that if you're a Muslim, it only works if you are a woman / gay / black or anything your alternative governments decide to make the norm in the future, but it's definitely not going to be Islam or the Muslims so it's pretty futile to even attempt doing that.

>Again, this is cost of admission to western civilization.

No thanks, people are starting to get aware of this supposed cost and hopefully the majority will leave and the ones who will stay will probably be either the ones who accepted these costs or probably people who are there out of necessity and will shut up or just leave. I'd vote for mass deportation, cutting ties and also mass deporting anyone who supports the west in any shape or form to the west and closing this deal.

I was agreeing. I think Islam as practiced by many is incompatible with modern western civilization. I think for stability and peace there needs to be seperation, where people can live in a society where there values are reflected.

That said, I'm not pro globohomo and the exportation by the west of degeneracy and sexual perversion needs to be countered. This conflict is not against Swedish police or really even governments, but an unelected cabal that infiltrate and influence civil society through capture of societal institutions.

>I think Islam as practiced by many is incompatible with modern western civilization.

Not sure how you'd define the modern western civilization if you cut off the sexual perversion honestly, I think you have a vision for a christian western civilization? not exactly sure if that would be compatible with "modernity" or "progressiveness" either because as far as I understand if you're not into the sexual perversion and whatnot, you'd fall also under some category of being a hilly billy, a traditionalist or a domestic terrorist. technically as far as I understand, usually the terms modernity / progressiveness are used to describe the people who keep up with the perversions the alternative govts / cabal introduce over time.

but overall speaking about the modern west now or even a christian west answers are going to be the same anyways.

Incompatible with the modern / christian west, yes Incapable of peacefully co-existing, no Encourages people to get out and live in the west or any land that isn't ruled by sharia law unless for necessity and a limited time? no I think these three should be distinguished pretty well

>I think for stability and peace there needs to be separation

that's something we can agree on

>where people can live in a society where there values are reflected. That's something your government will never allow not even for you ( probably as a Christian? ) to achieve.

That is also why they infiltrate the Islamic countries with proxy governments and endless social institutions and also with brainwashing media channels.

And it is also why Sweden or the west do allow Muslim immigrants without really checking their ideological attitudes because they want these so called fundamentalists to live in their societies and change and become like them, officially described as "integrate".

I associate the sexual perversion with post-modernism. Many of the christian denominations have been captured by the progressive left or caused a schism. The Methodists are schisming over homosexual issues this year as many Anglican churches have. I'd have to travel some distance to attend a church that holds true to traditional Christian teachings.

Peaceful coexistence in the, good fences make good neighbors, sense; that would be my wish.

‘A good fence helpeth to keepe peace between neighbours; but let vs take heed that we make not a high stone wall, to keepe vs from meeting.’

The US and UK and Germany all say they attempt to screen for ideological attitudes, it appears they've a high failure rate. Part of the problem is that often when told directly they discount what they see and hear when it fails to meet their expectation. This leads to poor outcomes.

I suspect you and I would find many areas of agreement. I'm likely a traditionalist.

This reply was rate limited by HN. I'm on reddit, which I hate for all sorts of reasons, with the same username, also Telegram

> I associate the sexual perversion with post-modernism. Personally I date it back to the time when the cinema was invented and when they started showing slightly stripped women then the snowball rolled all the way down to pornography, legal prostitution, pop / punk culture and to what we have now as the lgbtq+ / feminism etc.

> Peaceful coexistence in the, good fences make good neighbors, sense; that would be my wish.

exactly, same here.

> The US and UK and Germany all say they attempt to screen for ideological attitudes, it appears they've a high failure rate. Part of the problem is that often when told directly they discount what they see and hear when it fails to meet their expectation. This leads to poor outcomes.

I don't buy this tbh, it's a no brainer to ask for ideological attitudes if you want people to be of the same ideologies as yours in the future.

You can just spend some money on posters and local new media to inform the locals who are trying to immigrate that anyone who rejects the western morals ( including the freedom to insult all religions including Islam ) isn't welcome, and that would split people into ones ready to exchange their religion for access to western societies and all the liberties / freedoms associated, and ones who would rather keep their religion and not immigrate.

making immigration about saving human lives etc, is just delusional if one cannot be left at peace without someone disrespecting his most basic beliefs.

But such statements would actually invalidate all of the human rights crap which they need to keep the illusion of, to still be able to pass their atheism as some sort of endless unconditional love for every human being regardless of any other factors including religion. putting a hard line would take that privilege of grooming and luring people into atheism off them and would make more homogeneous / stronger societies, which is something they'd never allow to happens as far as I can see. they could have just pulled out their proxy governments and left people alone in their home countries really, but nowadays even in SA you can see night clubs / kpop etc has spread.

If one Islamic nation would form and rule with the sharia ps. Islamic law without the influence of the west you would probably see almost all Muslims moving there - at least I hope - not sure if it would be economically viable etc, but I do hope if such a thing actually exists someday people will be willing to flood it.

> I suspect you and I would find many areas of agreement. I'm likely a traditionalist.

I think so as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com