The Danish government said on Friday it was proposing legislation that would make it illegal to burn copies of the Koran in public places, part of the Nordic country's effort to de-escalate tensions with Muslim countries.
I mean, if we step back and observe the situation, we can see the best strategy is to threaten violence.
Why? Because one side wanted to impose their sensibilities on the other, threatened them with violent retribution, and then got what they wanted. It WORKS.
And now that it is a proven strategy, there is no reason to bother exploring other alternatives. Threatening violence is EASY. It’s the lowest and simplest rhetoric available. Also, there are always nutjobs in the wings who will independently act on violent rhetoric if you just keep pumping it. You don’t even have to plan or direct the actual violence, it’ll just happen organically.
So yeah, based on the results of this, I think any reasonable person would conclude violence and threats of violence are a simple and effective way to achieve political goals in Denmark.
Theocracy and fascism are not mutually exclusive. Fascism means you’re hyper-patriotic, theocracy means you’re getting your rules from some ancient book. You can be both at the same time.
And I disagree, I doubt the problem would go away if we just Thanos-blinked Islam from existence. Culture goes a lot deeper than mere religion.
Oh I see the problem, you got the definition of theocracy wrong. A theocracy is a form of government where the head of state is a priest, like Iran. Iran is a theocracy not because it’s Islamist but because its head of state is an ayatollah.
Islamists don’t have to be priests to rule.
And when did I bring the “make Islam disappear” up?
Islamism has taken over Muslim countries, islamists feel threatened over anything that might challenge them, something challenges them, they cry about it, Denmark bows to them
I see now. Someone else mentioned it too, it’s similar to how we don’t negotiate with terrorists imo.
Personally I’m against all book burning, religious or no. In this instance though, it’s not just that Islamists are against it, as much as it giving them free recruitment ammunition, to help motivate their populace.
There’s always a certain percentage of crazies in any society. They benefit if they can recruit more moderate people to that extremist position. When we attack them, either physically or ideologically, we feed into that mechanism that strengthens them by giving them more of what they want. They say they don’t want us to burn their quoran, but I suspect their leaders are actually extremely happy when we do.
In the US, a parallel would be evangelicals. For reference, a lot of them are republicans because their values somewhat align (anti-abortion for instance is a pretty big evangelist topic, same with banning talk/rights of lgbtq in public spaces) and they are having more of an effect on politics over the last few years. Also, they rather like book burning as well, excepting the Bible.
I don’t care how they feel, I just care how useful it is to them. They can use some things more than others. Burning their favorite things is something they can use for sure.
Making all their women want to wear bikinis and their teenagers want to watch movies and play video games is harder for them to make use of. And probably more effective in the long run. Soft power, basically.
Ah, got it. Yeah, theocracies suck. I think undermining them without infuriating them would be a more intelligent strategy though.
I mean, if we step back and observe the situation, we can see the best strategy is to threaten violence.
Why? Because one side wanted to impose their sensibilities on the other, threatened them with violent retribution, and then got what they wanted. It WORKS.
And now that it is a proven strategy, there is no reason to bother exploring other alternatives. Threatening violence is EASY. It’s the lowest and simplest rhetoric available. Also, there are always nutjobs in the wings who will independently act on violent rhetoric if you just keep pumping it. You don’t even have to plan or direct the actual violence, it’ll just happen organically.
So yeah, based on the results of this, I think any reasonable person would conclude violence and threats of violence are a simple and effective way to achieve political goals in Denmark.
There la a Southpark episode coming To this exact conclusion. Violence works. It’s a sad truth
Twas an episode explaining how Muhamed got the power to not be made fun of
Reasonable, and extremely simple person, maybe. I see what you’re saying though. Similar to the “don’t negotiate with terrorists” thing.
That’s like making a fire that doesn’t burn. And no, it’s closer to fascism than to a theocracy
Theocracy and fascism are not mutually exclusive. Fascism means you’re hyper-patriotic, theocracy means you’re getting your rules from some ancient book. You can be both at the same time.
And I disagree, I doubt the problem would go away if we just Thanos-blinked Islam from existence. Culture goes a lot deeper than mere religion.
Oh I see the problem, you got the definition of theocracy wrong. A theocracy is a form of government where the head of state is a priest, like Iran. Iran is a theocracy not because it’s Islamist but because its head of state is an ayatollah.
Islamists don’t have to be priests to rule.
And when did I bring the “make Islam disappear” up?
I was moving back to my original thesis, which is that offending them doesn’t accomplish much. I don’t perceive Islam itself to be the problem.
I admit I don’t fully understand what you’re specifically trying to say though.
Islamism has taken over Muslim countries, islamists feel threatened over anything that might challenge them, something challenges them, they cry about it, Denmark bows to them
But how does this relate to the book burning ban being a good or bad idea?
Because it’s basically giving Islamism concessions. The Qur’an burning is a mild one, but just imagine they do it with more serious issues.
I see now. Someone else mentioned it too, it’s similar to how we don’t negotiate with terrorists imo.
Personally I’m against all book burning, religious or no. In this instance though, it’s not just that Islamists are against it, as much as it giving them free recruitment ammunition, to help motivate their populace.
There’s always a certain percentage of crazies in any society. They benefit if they can recruit more moderate people to that extremist position. When we attack them, either physically or ideologically, we feed into that mechanism that strengthens them by giving them more of what they want. They say they don’t want us to burn their quoran, but I suspect their leaders are actually extremely happy when we do.
We’re literally shooting ourselves in the foot.
In the US, a parallel would be evangelicals. For reference, a lot of them are republicans because their values somewhat align (anti-abortion for instance is a pretty big evangelist topic, same with banning talk/rights of lgbtq in public spaces) and they are having more of an effect on politics over the last few years. Also, they rather like book burning as well, excepting the Bible.
Oh don’t even mention that heretical joke of Christianity that claims to be true but was founded 1700 years after Jesus taught
Good luck. Undermining their authority infuriates them all by itself.
I don’t care how they feel, I just care how useful it is to them. They can use some things more than others. Burning their favorite things is something they can use for sure.
Making all their women want to wear bikinis and their teenagers want to watch movies and play video games is harder for them to make use of. And probably more effective in the long run. Soft power, basically.