Jul 25, 2011
A moment of silence
After what happened in Norway this past weekend, this blog is taking a moment of silence. I may write more about this topic later, but for now I merely hope that the hate-mongers in all our countries would also take a moment and think about the consequences of building up a culture of intolerance, racism and hatred. What happened this weekend is a stark reminder of how inhuman and brutal the ideology of "immigration criticism" fundamentally is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Actually based on Breivik's past I don't think what he did had anything to do with current discussion about immigration policy.
In a sense he reminds me a lot of our beloved Abdullah Tammi who started up as extreme leftist, followed by a move to the other extreme in the political spectrum and a short stint as ultra-conservative muslim. And now he has returned to his roots by establishing a new far-leftist workers party.
Of course Tammi hasn't done anything violet (yet), but he does seem to share a prominent character type with Breivik, i.e. unlike normal people neither of them is actually interested at all on the ideologues they claim to promote. Instead they use those ideologues to cloak their true driving force, i.e. the general hate for the prevailing (democratic) political system.
Breivik would have always done what he did, regardless of the prevalent political climate. If he had been active on 60ies he would most likely become member of RAF or any other similar violent extremist group and based his actions on the leftist ideologue instead of the (apparent) fixation on anti-immigration issues he has professed now.
People like Breivik always have been, always are and always will be among us, simply because some people are born as completely insane sociopaths. Blaming people who legally disagree with the current political issues (such as immigration) for his actions is dishonest in extreme.
"Actually based on Breivik's past I don't think what he did had anything to do with current discussion about immigration policy."
You make several far-reaching claims about Breivik and his motivations that directly contradict what he himself has said in his manifesto about his motives for carrying out this attack. Unless you have some kind of sources to back up your assertions, I don't see any reason to take them seriously.
"Blaming people who legally disagree with the current political issues (such as immigration) for his actions is dishonest in extreme."
No, distorting what I've said is "dishonest in extreme". It's known as a straw man argument.
Michael: If I recall correctly, in addition to belonging to Freemasons Breivik has also a past in radical leftist group. The fact that he apparently can jump between such ideologically extremely varied groups (far left to Freemasons to far right) suggests to me that he doesn't actually care at all about the ideology of the group he belongs to as long as he can use it to promote his general hate for the established society.
"...that directly contradict what he himself has said in his manifesto..."
Yes, his manifesto... The main point I'm trying to say is that I don't really believe he actually is a person who truly believes in the crap he has written, especially considering his past and the fact that a lot of stuff written in the manifesto seems to be quite self-contradictory in nature.
To me his manifesto mostly seems to be something he wrote to promote his true driving motive, the deep hate against democratic society. I.e., he did not kill nearly 100 people because he had some deep held beliefs about immigration policy, instead the immigration policy issues are just an excuse to him to revel in his deep wish to hurt the society around as bad as he can.
"No, distorting what I've said is "dishonest in extreme"."
I quote your last sentence in the original post:
"What happened this weekend is a stark reminder of how inhuman and brutal the ideology of "immigration criticism" fundamentally is."
Here you're directly connecting Breivik and immigration criticism which is patently untrue and a logical fallacy of worst sort. Immigration criticism isn't brutal or inhuman ideology, it simply disagrees with you about what is the sustainable level of immigration in our current society. Disagreeing with you on this issue doesn't make a person any more insane sociopaths like Breivik than you disagreeing with immigration critics makes you similar to lunatics from RAF for example.
I'd make a longer reply, but your comment stands well enough on its own merits, namely this:
Here you're directly connecting Breivik and immigration criticism which is patently untrue and a logical fallacy of worst sort.
Yeah. Sure.
Michael: So you see nothing wrong with judging the whole movement and all members of it by it's absolutely worst example? That's what equating "immigration critical" people in general with a sociopath like Breivik is after all.
Well, I kinda don't wonder why you do it, since demonizing your opponents *is* unfortunately an effective tactic in debates and this is not the first time you have done.
What is pretty sad though, is that all this comes from a guy who writes a blog called "freedom". That kind of overall demonization of one's opponents you have done here is after all a tool so loved and well used by totalitarian groups/governments.
Funnily enough it's also pretty much the same type of language the worst examples of the "immigration critical" group are using to de-humanize people they don't like. So I guess this is again an example of the horse shoe politics, where the groups which claim to be the opposite ends of spectrum are actually much closer to each others than the people in the middle.
You think I'm overreacting?
If so, please explain me how calling people (i.e. the vast majority of the "immigration criticals") whose worst offence is to simply to disagree with you in immigration policy issues "brutal and inhuman" is anything else than blatant and opportunistic take on trying to win the fight by demonizing and de-humanizing your opponents.
So you see nothing wrong with judging the whole movement and all members of it by it's absolutely worst example?
Nonsense. That would be terrible. I hope you'll remember this indignation you feel at judging an entire group of people by the absolute worst examples the next time you hear the sort of Islamophobic nonsense about, say, all Muslims being terrorists, or Islam being a horrible and brutal religion just because some of its members - surely, the absolute worst - do horrible and brutal things. Not to mention the mainstay of "immigration criticalism", i.e. all foreigners who look different from us are criminals.
That's what equating "immigration critical" people in general with a sociopath like Breivik is after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Well, I kinda don't wonder why you do it, since demonizing your opponents *is* unfortunately an effective tactic in debates and this is not the first time you have done.
Given your apparent level of reading comprehension, I'm sure you think I have.
That kind of overall demonization of one's opponents you have done here is after all a tool so loved and well used by totalitarian groups/governments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy
You think I'm overreacting?
Yes.
If so, please explain me how calling people (i.e. the vast majority of the "immigration criticals") whose worst offence is to simply to disagree with you in immigration policy issues "brutal and inhuman" is anything else than blatant and opportunistic take on trying to win the fight by demonizing and de-humanizing your opponents.
I already linked to the strawman argument. That's all this is, and if you haven't got anything better to say, you're done here. I have no obligation or desire to let people post this kind of nonsense on my blog.
"I hope you'll remember this indignation you feel at judging an entire group of people by the absolute worst examples the next time you hear the sort of Islamophobic nonsense"
And based on what exactly you think I don't feel the same in that case?
The fact that I don't agree with all aspects of current immigration policy doesn't mean I think all muslims are terrorists.
And yes I know what straw man argument is but unfortunate *fact* is that in your original blog post you do state the following:
"What happened this weekend is a stark reminder of how inhuman and brutal the ideology of "immigration criticism" fundamentally is."
I.e. you're saying what Breivik did is a representative of"immigration critical" ideology in general.
And if calling the whole ideology and consequently the "immigration critical" people in general "brutal and inhuman" simply based on the crimes of one sociopath isn't demonizing your opponents I really don't know what is.
"That's all this is, and if you haven't got anything better to say, you're done here. I have no obligation or desire to let people post this kind of nonsense on my blog."
Yes, you can of course start censoring your blog if you wish and I do understand why you would want to do it since your original post is indefensible, especially considering the values you usually champion in this same medium.
Only thing you have been able to do thus far has been to post a wikipedia link which actually applies only to your own original arguments, not mine, here few times. So if you cannot come up with rational defense for your arguments, please go ahead, censor your blog.
Continuing this discussion wouldn't clearly be worth it anyway and maybe it makes you feel better since you can then at least pretend you won the argument :-)
I'm going to try this one last time.
And if calling the whole ideology and consequently the "immigration critical" people in general "brutal and inhuman" simply based on the crimes of one sociopath isn't demonizing your opponents I really don't know what is.
My boldface. See here.
Michael: So just to check if I follow your reasoning. You're saying that although you call immigration critical ideology (I wouldn't actually call it ideology myself, but that's beside the point here) "inhuman and brutal" (direct quote from your blog) you don't at the same time judge immigration critical people similarly?
If so I'd like to know how you can divorce the ideology and the people, so completely. I.e. the ideology in itself is "inhuman and brutal" but there is nothing wrong with the immigration critical people themselves?
And even if so, I'm still wondering how you can judge entire ideology/mindset (however you wish to call it) to be *fundamentally* "brutal and inhuman" simply based on the actions of one sociopath.
All ideologies attract extremists after all, so if the actions of one are sufficient to damn the entire ideology, *any* ideology, be it leftist, right-wing or whatever should be called brutal and inhuman. Crimes against humanity have been committed under all possible pretenses after all...
You're saying that although you call immigration critical ideology (I wouldn't actually call it ideology myself, but that's beside the point here) "inhuman and brutal" (direct quote from your blog) you don't at the same time judge immigration critical people similarly?
Right.
If so I'd like to know how you can divorce the ideology and the people, so completely.
Very easily. People have many, many more attributes than the political ideology that they subscribe to. It wouldn't make any sense to judge people solely by what ideology they subscribe to. Not all leftists, environmentalists, etc. are the same.
I.e. the ideology in itself is "inhuman and brutal" but there is nothing wrong with the immigration critical people themselves?
I've said no such thing. In my personal opinion, there probably is something wrong with a person who subscribes to a racist ideology of hatred. But I can't really know that just from the fact that they subscribe to it, I just suspect it strongly.
And even if so, I'm still wondering how you can judge entire ideology/mindset (however you wish to call it) to be *fundamentally* "brutal and inhuman" simply based on the actions of one sociopath.
Again, I'm doing no such thing. This whole conversation would be much easier if you restricted your comments to my post, as opposed to inferences you've drawn from it. I consider "immigration criticalism" a brutal and inhuman ideology from years of experience with it and, in general, my collected knowledge of it. What happened in Norway in no way fundamentally altered my view of "immigration criticism" and islamophobia.
You've referred to older posts on my blog previously; surely if you've read them, it's abundantly clear that I've been strongly opposed to racism and islamophobia for pretty much as long as this blog has existed.
All ideologies attract extremists after all, so if the actions of one are sufficient to damn the entire ideology, *any* ideology, be it leftist, right-wing or whatever should be called brutal and inhuman.
Yes. That's why the actions of one individual aren't sufficient.
"Very easily. People have many, many more attributes than the political ideology that they subscribe to."
I do agree as long as we talk about moderate ideologies. However in case of extreme ideologies they tend to dominate my view of the person in question.
As an example, if a person is a card carrying member of greens for example this has only very limited impact on how I see the person. Granted, it probably let's me roughly guess certain political views he/she might hold, but there's still very large variation between the people belonging to the same group.
However if the same person would belong for example to a violent extremist group, there are *very* few things strong enough to redeem him in my eyes :)
Therefore if someone describes an ideology as strongly as you did, it becomes very difficult for me not to take that also as a condemnation of the person believing in that ideology. If one subscribes to an "inhuman and brutal" ideology it's after all difficult to imagine that he/she would be much better as a person either.
"In my personal opinion, there probably is something wrong with a person who subscribes to a racist ideology of hatred."
This is probably the reason why we seem to talk about different things most of the time.
Agreed, some extreme interpretations of "immigration critical" ideology are racist but those are minority, not the mainstream. Therefore I think labeling the whole immigration critical ideology as a racist ideology of hatred is a (dangerous and demonizing) simplification. I'd call myself (and several of my friends) immigration criticals, but none of us are racists and/or feel we subscribe to any ideology of hatred. We simply prefer different immigration policy than (for example) you.
"I consider "immigration criticalism" a brutal and inhuman ideology from years of experience with it and, in general, my collected knowledge of it."
Then I guess you might have had worse luck than me. Most of the immigration criticals I know are just as nice people as anyone else around, they simply prefer slightly different immigration policy compared to current one.
Yes, there are ocassional bad apples and they tend to be pretty vocal ones, but as one of the representatives of police department in internet said, actual hate crimes in internet are quite rare and an average person on immigration critical forums like Homma is not really different compared to an average person on any major Finnish internet forum.
We simply prefer different immigration policy than (for example) you.
Sure, if you oversimplify, this is all it is. At the end of the day, communists just prefer a different economic policy than, for example, me.
The "immigration critical" political stance labels all immigrants belonging to certain religions and/or ethnic groups as dangerous, and wants to restrict their immigration. That, by any other name, is racism. Therefore, it is a racist ideology. That's about as simple as it gets.
"Immigration criticism" is just a fancy name for hating different-coloured foreigners. I'm perfectly aware that many of its adherents like to dress it up as some kind of rational criticism or whatever, but if you actually look at the values and ways of thinking expounded on, say, the forum you mentioned, it becomes pretty clear that the foundation of so-called "immigration criticism" is pure racism.
On top of that, the apocalyptic islamophobia that is indelibly associated with the movement is purely an ideology of hate, wit its monstrous conspiracy theories of Islamization and jihads.
So yes, it is a brutal and inhuman ideology. You can pretend it isn't, if you like, but in my opinion, the rhetoric of its leaders leaves very little doubt as to what its core values are.
Most of the immigration criticals I know are just as nice people as anyone else around, they simply prefer slightly different immigration policy compared to current one.
Like I said, I'm not talking about the people, I'm talking about the ideology.
"Sure, if you oversimplify, this is all it is. At the end of the day, communists just prefer a different economic policy than, for example, me."
Yes, if I was talking about the fundamentalists among immigration criticals I would be oversimplifying.
"The "immigration critical" political stance labels all immigrants belonging to certain religions and/or ethnic groups as dangerous, and wants to restrict their immigration."
And this, I guess, is the nucleus of our dispute. What you call "immigration criticals" are apparently what I fall *fundamentalist* immigration criticals.
As said before, I consider myself and quite few people I know or follow in blogs immigration criticals and afaik none of us labels *all* members of certain religious and/or ethnic groups as dangerous.
However, I do disagree with the current immigration policy, hence I'd label myself as immigration critical, dunno how you would call me :)
"That, by any other name, is racism. Therefore, it is a racist ideology. That's about as simple as it gets."
Yup, as far as your description goes, it pretty much is racism. The only thing we disagree on is that I don't think that mindset covers entire immigration critical crowd, but as said before I guess that just follows from the different definition for "immigration critical" we seem to have.
""Immigration criticism" is just a fancy name for hating different-coloured foreigners."
To put this other way around, what you call "immigration criticism", i.e. hating people due to their skin colour for example, is what I call racism.
"I'm perfectly aware that many of its adherents like to dress it up as some kind of rational criticism or whatever, but if you actually look at the values and ways of thinking expounded on, say, the forum you mentioned, it becomes pretty clear that the foundation of so-called "immigration criticism" is pure racism."
In my case the basis of my immigration criticism is imho something quite different than pure racism, but I do agree that there are people in immigration critical crowd which are racists.
But as the police I quoted earlier said, there aren't any more racists at Homma compared to any other large Finnish internet forum, i.e. immigration critical crowd doesn't really differ from the general population in that respect. However as far as Homma goes I rely mostly on the info I get from second-hand sources, I don't follow that forum myself.
"So yes, it is a brutal and inhuman ideology. You can pretend it isn't, if you like, but in my opinion, the rhetoric of its leaders leaves very little doubt as to what its core values are."
Yup, as long as we define immigration criticism the same way, I do agree that racism (or immigration criticism as you call it) is inhuman ideology.
However what I call (moderate?) immigration criticism, i.e. the ideology my ideology (if I could call it that), isn't. But then again, based on how you describe "immigration criticism" I suppose the way I think wouldn't fit in your definition of immigration criticism either.
And this, I guess, is the nucleus of our dispute. What you call "immigration criticals" are apparently what I fall *fundamentalist* immigration criticals.
I can imagine an exactly identical debate with a Western communist in Stalin's time. "What you call communism is some kind of extremism. Of course, me and my friends aren't in favor of the collectivization of agriculture or the Gulag, and neither are most communists." If we previously agreed that defining a movement by its worst examples would be wrong, you seem to be doing the exact opposite.
I'm quite sure there are many "immigration critical" people who aren't racists. I'm similarly sure that even in Stalin's time, most communists were perfectly decent people. In general, I think most people are. If I could demonstrate to you that the majority of the people who voted for the Nazis, even the majority of NSDAP members, were nice guys, would you then say that we can't call Nazism an inhuman and brutal ideology?
As said before, I consider myself and quite few people I know or follow in blogs immigration criticals and afaik none of us labels *all* members of certain religious and/or ethnic groups as dangerous.
I'm sure you don't. But by calling yourself "immigration critical", you're actively associating yourself with a movement whose most visible members do.
However, I do disagree with the current immigration policy, hence I'd label myself as immigration critical, dunno how you would call me :)
That's a blatantly ridiculous definition of "immigration criticism". By that standard, anyone who wants Finland to accept more refugees is "immigration critical", because they disagree with current immigration policy! So that's pure nonsense. The only workable definition of "immigration criticism" is a desire for less immigration, specifically by groups that are considered undesirable. And that, sir, is racism.
In my case the basis of my immigration criticism is imho something quite different than pure racism, but I do agree that there are people in immigration critical crowd which are racists.
I don't know what you think, but in my opinion, choosing to associate with a racist movement says something about you as a person.
Post a Comment