Spotify Executive Chris Bevington Dies In Stockholm Attack (variety.com) 366
"On Friday, four people were killed and about 15 more were injured when a truck plowed through a shopping area in the heart of Sweden's capital," reports Variety. One of the four victims was Chris Bevington, an executive at Spotify. An anonymous reader writes:
"The British 41-year-old had served as Spotify's director of global partnerships/business development, working from Stockholm," reports Variety. The streaming service's founder, Daniel Ek, confirmed the news with a Facebook post on Sunday. "Chris has been a member of our band for over five years. He has had a great impact on not just the business but on everyone who had the privilege to know and work with him. There are no words for how missed he will be or for how sad we all are to have lost him like this."
Had he been a Rust programmer he'd still be alive. (Score:4, Funny)
He'd be safe in his basement, covered in Cheeto dust.
Damn you society! Why must you hate on Rust!?! Another life taken!!!!
too soon (Score:5, Funny)
"Comedy is tragedy plus time".
Rust is still a raw wound, don't pour salt in it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's too early.
Make Ruby on Rails jokes instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but what kind of life is that? You'd envy the dead.
Re: Had he been a Rust programmer he'd still be a (Score:5, Funny)
Now hold on. I'm a Rust programmer and I need to clear this up. We don't eat only Cheetos.
We eat from the whole "'tos" family. Doritos, Fritos, Oreotos( ok I cheated on that one). So stop saying we're covered in just Cheeto dust. We're covered in all sorts of dusts.
Re: (Score:2)
We're covered in all sorts of dusts.
Angel dust would explain a thing or two...
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, that chair creaking under your weight when you move isn't quite a roar.
damn truck (Score:4, Funny)
if only we could do something about these trucks driving into crowds by themselves for no reason
oh well guess its hopeless
Re: (Score:2)
We need some sort of hero trucks, that preferably can turn into robots.
I loves the Religion of Peace! (Score:5, Funny)
You have been visited by the islamic truck of tolerance!
Honk Honk!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a nice summary of our times. (Score:2, Interesting)
And what about the other three? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do care more for this guy than the others because he worked for a tech company? The other three had hobbies, relationships, careers (except the eleven year-old).
I get that this is a tech news site, but the fact that he worked for a company we've heard of (or that he made a lot of money) does not seem like sufficient cause to care about his death so much more than the other victims.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you do care, one of the two Swedish victims was an 11-year-old girl on her way home from school. The other was a 31-year-old Belgian woman, visiting Stockholm as a tourist. The other Swedish victim isn't described in the article.
If you care about the perpetrator, since he is a human too, he is a 39-year-old Uzbek man. In 2014, he had applied for a residence permit in Sweden, but last summer the application was
Re: (Score:2)
It's Jude. Singular. Juden is the plural. At least when you abuse German, do it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really have nothing better to do than reply to your own posts, AlecStaar? Guess not--you've been doing it for about 20 years now.
Re:And what about the other three? (Score:5, Informative)
Do care more for this guy than the others because he worked for a tech company? The other three had hobbies, relationships, careers (except the eleven year-old).
As far as I know the other three haven't been publicly identified so it's less personal for us with nameless, faceless victims and a whole lot less to say. Not that it really matters who in that it's not a targeted attack like Charlie Hebdo, the victims are just random people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. And that's the problem, so many apologists are still looking for a way we've wronged these people that caused them to become terrorists. But we haven't, we are simply kafir [wikipedia.org] and our disbelief in Allah is our crime.
There was a documentary here in Norway published quite recently called "The Norwegian Islamist", the main character was just convicted to 9 years in prison for terror recruitment. He had agree to the documentary to show "true Islam" and really gave a good look into his world view, it was simple yet terrifying. The world was divided in two, Muslims and non-Muslims. Nations matters not. Laws matters not. As long as he follows Islam, all is justified. Every other word out of his mouth was inshallah [wikipedia.org], if Allah wills it.
The Islamic State is the one place on Earth where muslims can live by Allah's laws. Those who oppose the Islamic State oppose Allah, those who oppose Allah must die. He'd publicly applaud terrorists and terrorism, stopping just short of encouraging it in a way that'd be illegal. Basically he'd say something like "praise the brave martyrs in Paris, may Allah open the gates to paradise for you" or something like that. He was sending converts to Iraq/Syria to do "humanitarian aid" and you could just feel the quote marks hanging in the air like a big in-joke.
I really didn't want to Godwin this post but if you ever wondered how the Nazis managed to justify sending women and children to the gas chambers simply for being Jews then that's exactly how he feels about non-Muslims. It's total war in its purest form, everyone is a legitimate target. And the same goes the other way around, as long as they're martyrs to the cause they're not atrocities. They're not terrorists. They're holy warriors fighting a holy war for Allah and the only thing that matters is to crush your enemies for the glory of Allah. The ultimate in "the ends justify the means".
Re:And what about the other three? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that. It's always the dead who are widely reported. Injured - not so much. Reading the media, there are the 'critically injured' who are implicitly conveyed as being in a purgatory - either succumbing to their injuries, or leaving the hospital.
If you think about how many people died in Nice, London etc. and terrorist attacks in general, there's some kind of distribution curve going on. Sure, some of those injured will fully recover. I suppose that, at least as many people who died, if not some multiple of that, are left with permanent disabilities, lifelong medical conditions or unsolvable disfigurements.
Why is media obsessed with deaths exclusively, when just-not-fatal-enough, or life-altering injuries can be as horrific as, or sometimes even worse than death?
Where are the statistics and reports that say, X people died, Y people become permanently wheelchair-bound, lost limbs, vital organs or senses, have their face burnt or disfigured, or suffered brain injury, or in some cases, mental trauma, that ended their studies, career or even self-sufficiency? It's not like everyone injured is going home with some scratch wounds or perfectly healing bone fractures.
A more minor point is, there's initial score keeping of the dead, but as the count creeps up due to losses becoming known, and people dying in medical care subsequently, by the time the real count is known, the media interest subsided, i.e. there's a consistent bias that results in lower perceived impact than in reality. Also, there's shock and anger right then and there, but any interviews on (short)changed lives after the years either never happen or reach a minuscule audience.
Sure, media don't often artificially generate interest in things that are not of 'right now' time. But, when something like this in Stockholm happened, why don't media report back on outcomes of e.g. the attack in Nice? E.g. how many are still in hospital, or in rehabilitation, how many became wheelchair-bound?
Re: (Score:2)
You're asking too much of mainstream media.
Re: (Score:3)
Do care more for this guy than the others because he worked for a tech company?
Yes. Had the victims been safely confined to unremarkable plebs and not included a figure from one of vaunted fight-the-man music streaming outfits you can be certain there would have been no mention of these events on Slashdot. Quite the opposite.
Twitter has already buried his account ("Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!") , but if you dig it out of Google's cache you find Chris retweeting Obama campaign playlists. No surprise. One wonders if he too spent time down modding wrong-think "racists" in
Slashdot is trying hard.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you even Swedish? (Score:5, Informative)
The current party is the one that put the breaks on letting refugees in and making the asylum process stricter. The guy who committed the attack was denied asylum. The previous party that was in power, which was center-right, was the one that was turning a blind eye towards unskilled immigrants arriving for years. I suspect they will try to speed up the process of deported failed asylum seekers and keeping a closer watch on them going forward.
Some shitty people took advantage of the Syrian refugee crisis expecting they'd make it into a top European country and either be accepted despite not being Syrian or be able to get away with lying about it, and live the good life on welfare and a few extremists as well for the purpose of carrying out attacks. Europe really wasn't ready for it, did not have a strong defense on its outer border (and still doesn't, it's likely impossible to guard all possible entry points), the laws they had in place were built around handling a much smaller number of refugees in a more controlled manner. Most countries have since adapted, the number of refugees arriving has dropped dramatically, but they're still trying to figure out what to do with the ones they have and deporting the failed asylum seekers. Once the war is over in Syria, the refugees will be sent back as European countries have done with refugees from other countries that are now safe. Yeah, I'm sure some will slip through the cracks for awhile until they're caught, same shit happens in almost every major country though.
Europe has never been heaven. There are often some difficult issues going on, countries adapt to them through the normal political process and don't need to go apeshit fourth reich like the far right thinks is the only way to handle things.
Re: Are you even Swedish? (Score:2, Insightful)
You are fucking insane.
It is an invasion. They will never go. Why the hell would they give up welfare, free phones, free homes, and immunity from prosecution for sex crimes? It's paradise, and the 72 virgins are blonde and speak German, Swedish, and English.
There will be another genocide in Europe, and it will be conducted under the banner of diversity, and sanctioned through the implementation of political Islam.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Stop drinking the kool-aid. First of all it's not up to their choice. What OP was saying is that the way asylums work is that they're not eternal. People fleeing a war are given asylum until the war ends, after which it's revoked and they're returned to their country of origin. They're not given a choice in the matter. Se
Re: Are you even Swedish? (Score:5, Insightful)
It didn't happen when the caliphate had vast standing armies because we had vast standing armies of our own. It's not called the Battle of Vienna because everyone got together and talked about their feelings and sang kumbaya.
What you're saying about asylum is how it's SUPPOSED to work, not how it's working NOW. Which wouldn't be a problem if the EU was actually trying to fix the situation, but they seem to be as dangerously naieve as you are being.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't agree with the earlier post, I don't think we can go the other way either and simply claim there's no danger, because in essence, these things can't be predicted -- the problem is that nobody knows how far political islam will spread. And because it can't be predicted, people fear the unknown. Predicting it will never happen only stokes the fears of those who feel like it is happening but being ignored.
There are many countries which turned into basket cases. North Korea, Lebanon, Zimbabwe.
And
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are you even Swedish? (Score:4, Informative)
The current party is the one that put the breaks on letting refugees in and making the asylum process stricter.
Bullshit. All the other parties including the one in government right now have worked together to exclude the one anti-immigration party (Sverigedemokraterna, 12.86% of the vote) from gaining any political power. The only reason they slowed down a little was because the system was about to collapse under the immigration pressure. Essentially, as long as SD have <50% they'll pretend it's not there and vote the way that would have a majority without them. Right now they're polling at ~18%, with attacks like these they'll probably get even bigger.
Re: (Score:2)
Free Anders Breivik and let him deal with the problem.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
make the refugees police and let them enforce sharia law?
Re: Leftisy government (Score:5, Informative)
Sweden's high stats are because everything counts as rape, even things that in some countries aren't even crimes. Also, if the act is repeated, then it's counted twice. There have been cases where the same person (often in couples or married) where charged with 50 counts of rape. Finally, in Sweden, everything possible is done to make sure rapes are reported.
Reporting (Score:2)
While a slippery slope I'd question, or at least be a bit critical of those stats. I say this because I believe in certain cases the actual reporting to which those stats get built from are going to be highly influenced by how easy it might be for the victim to come forward and report the rape in the first place. The three countries you list, I suspect would likely have many challenges to the reporting I think.
Re: (Score:2)
The bottom three are Saudi Arabia, India and Egypt........
Sweden's high stats are because everything counts as rape, even things that in some countries aren't even crimes.
Indeed. In addition, which two countries are the kidnapping capitals of the world?
Australia and Canada.
Official figures from the United Nations show that there were 17 kidnaps per 100,000 people in Australia in 2010 and 12.7 in Canada.
That compares with only 0.6 in Colombia and 1.1 in Mexico.
The Julian Assange extradition case has put Sweden's relatively high incidence of rape under the spotlight. But can such statistics be reliably compared from one country to another? [bbc.com]
Re: Leftisy government (Score:3, Insightful)
Was never meant as an insult but rather to point out differences, as I don't think everything possible is being done in Saudi to get women to report rape, and since most things considered rape in Sweden aren't even crimes in Saudi, it wouldn't matter anyway.
Sweden is extreme in the other direction, which results in high rape stats, but this is a good thing imho (that they are being report
Re: (Score:2)
No. For several reasons: Sweden have a different definition of rape than many other countries, there is no social stigma in reporting a rape unlike many countries and the legal system have to handle any (substantial) claims of criminal activity even if the victim doesn't seek help themselves.
IOW the rape rate in Sweden can't be directly compared to other countries and if compensated for then it is in the normal range of a western nation.
Re: Leftisy government (Score:2)
It's not a mystery, it's been reported time and time again, the definition of rape changed, but more importantly, each count of rape started to count as an individual offense, so in a marriage, there could be 100s of rapes happening between the same two people. This is what you were referring to right?
Re: (Score:2)
Outlying incidents like this one notwithstanding, I'd much rather walk down a Stockholm street alone at 2AM than a street in any large US city alone at 2PM.
And I'd much rather have my wife walk down a Stockholm street alone at 2AM than a street in any large US city alone at 2PM.
(You do realise that you reveal yourself to be a complete moron by repeating such nonsense, right? Rhetorical question--you needn't bother answering.)
Re: (Score:2)
But remember, the swedes define a broken condom already as "rape". So it's easy to get the numbers high. Assange knows all about it. :-(
move on (Score:2, Offtopic)
Sweden is a runner-up for rapes per capita, fighting with Botswana for the second spot (after South Africa).
Really messes with a statistics if you have a country like Sweden classify consensual sex, with non-consensual condom disappearance, as rape.
They should just call it the Assange sexual offense.
Wait, Assange apologists still exist? I though you guys had given up when he lied about surrendering if Obama granted clemency to Manning.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't see how this counts as an Assange apology. I consider him an asswipe but not much of a rapist. Just states the facts of the case as I understand them. If anything this makes him burrowing in that embassy even more ridiculous.
The main point was to explain why the statics is so skewed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't see how this counts as an Assange apology. I consider him an asswipe but not much of a rapist.
It's not a simple case of "condom disappearance".
He insisted a lot (apparently it's a thing with him) but the girl said she didn't want sex without a condom. A couple hours later she wakes up with him inside her, fucking her and not wearing a condom. Of course the Assange apologists focus on the condom thing to spin it as some kind of pathetic argument. But can you please explain how someone can give consent in their sleep?
When it comes to determining if something is rape or not, here's a simple test: ask y
Re:move on (Score:5, Insightful)
Suddenly you seem well versed in the details of swedish rape cases, yet only a few posts ago you were parroting the well-trodden shit about the "rape capital" of the world. If all countries had sweden's level of reporting and definition of multiple offences then it is unlikely they would continue to have the highest stats. Either you suffer from "selective understanding" or you really need to troll harder.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't know about the assault while asleep part. Certainly much worse, and definitely rape as I understand the term.
Not that a disappearing condom is a laughing matter either.
Re: (Score:2)
The point was exactly that, Sweden law considers it a rape while you wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Sexual assault? The thing is that conditional consent fails when the condition fails. Just because two people consent to sex doesn't mean that one person starting to fuck the other while he/she is asleep isn't rape. Just because a girl consent to normal (vaginal) sex doesn't mean forcing a penis, finger or hand up their ass is okay.
I admit that the case you are referring to is a bit of borderline but that's just it - not only was there one instance of the same thing happening, there were two closely timed i
let go. (Score:2)
Do like me: opt out of moderation. That way you can thank people or tell them to go fuck themselves without worrying about your mod points. It's the zen thing to do.
“Although gold dust is precious, when it gets in your eyes, it obstructs your vision."
- Hsi Tang
Re:let go. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people here are sick of the far right shit
By "far right shit", you mean what, people saying that Trump was a better choice than Clinton? Or that taking in boatloads of Syrian refugees is a bad idea? Nowadays that's what pass as "far right" because the leftist activists have moved the axis with their constant SJW crap.
Re: (Score:2)
The far left has always obsessed with people's ideologies more than their genetics. It would be more accurate to say that the far left obsess over the color of people's thoughts, while the right fusses over the color of their skin. Dividing the world into groups to control is common to extremists of all kinds.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Fucking piece of shit Slashdot. I have five moderation points and used three of them to mod "politically incorrect" posts +1; insightful and then I wrote a post explaining that posted as AC and the damn site instantly removed my moderation. It used to ask (I don't use preview because it's not my fucking task to HTML format the text, manage links or do å, ä or ö. The incompetent people at Slashdot should had fixed their shit like ten years ago.) So now I have a shit-post and didn't helped saved your comments and I can't moderate anything more in the thread thanks to that shit-post. Thank you fucking POS /..
You must be new to moderation if you did not know that you can't moderate on a topic if you are also commenting on that topic. This policy has been in force since Slashdot allowed moderators. If you are moderating and wish to comment you can always post as an Anonymous Coward or have a separate account.
Purpose of solemnity (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the tragedy that occurred comments like yours are juts appalling!
People died here!
The only purpose of solemnity is control.
Once you get people to be solemn in extreme cases, over time you can slowly get people to agree in less compelling situations.
Eventually, everything becomes serious, everything is "not a joking matter".
DOES THIS [onsizzle.com] SEEM FUNNY TO YOU? HUH? HUH? DOES IT?
Well... yes it does, actually.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, this is funny. Actually, the whole office loved it. Of course with the infamous "ho-ho-ho" laughter that people break into when they are laughing about something but shouldn't because "it's inappropriate".
Fuck that! Like George Carlin said, "You can't joke about rape? Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. See? It's funny!"
Laughter is anathema to terrorism. Because terrorism aims at striking fear into your heart, and anyone laughing is not afraid. So yes, you should joke about it. Actually, you must. So
Re: (Score:2)
People died here!
So? They do that all over the globe all the time. "4 people died" is a breezy sunny morning in most parts of Africa. Provided that for a change NO militia comes by. Then you could add a zero or two.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you would feel different about it if it was your mother that had died, especially as that would mean you would have to move out of her basement.
Re: (Score:2)
Certainly. But care to inform me why I should give a fuck about anyone else dying?
Or why anyone else should even remotely be bothered by the death of my mom? I bet you didn't even hear about it when she died.
Re: (Score:2)
Then it's in good company, thinking with the heart isn't rational either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cost cutting (Score:5, Insightful)
Presumably, they did not work for companies fighting tooth and nail to keep the borders open.
It sucks that he died, sucks that they all died. It was, however, predictable (and predicted) and preventable. The last one was too, and the next one will be, and the next, etc.
So, the red pills will flow. And when one of the victims was not spared despite working for a company that thinks that "diversity is our strength", well, like it or not, but that sort of thing makes the red pills flow that much faster.
Re:Cost cutting (Score:4, Insightful)
"diversity is our strength"
I hate this saying. It is such a clear and obvious lie. Diversity is not, at all, a strength, but an exploitable weakness. At best, it is a challenge that requires enormous effort to overcome. If your neighborhood goes from having one culture to having ten, it is not stronger. Your neighborhood that used to agree on lots of things now has hundreds of potential conflicts, and it becomes very easy to exploit these differences to pit people against each other. The only reason to tell people that "diversity is a strength" is because you're trying to divide and conquer.
Re:Racist (Score:5, Informative)
Muslim is not a race.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To be a racist, you need to believe there are different races in first place and classify people by those.
Also "White racist" is a quite terrible statement, as its a racist affirmation by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Acknowledging that people look different isn't racist. It only becomes racist when you suggest that for the sole reason of this difference they must have or must not have certain traits. "A is white" isn't racist. "A is white and therefore he must be X" is.
Re:Racist (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Homo Sapiens is a species. There are multiple races, that is, various biological adaptations to different environments etc. Claiming anything else is just ideological indoctrination, no matter if you claim that there's only one race, or that some race is worth more than others.
There's plenty of evidence for it, like how some races are more or less susceptible to certain health issues, like say being less likely to suffer from Malaria but instead having an 8 times higher risk of contracting diabetes. Or, for another race, increased susceptibility to Malaria and more likely to suffer from clinical depression, but less susceptible to diabetes. There is plenty of biological evidence that proves your ideological imperative wrong.
As for your statement regarding breeding, you clearly show that you are quite ignorant about biology: Races can interbreed and produce viable offspring. Hell, in some families, you can even have cross-species breeding, though the offspring becomes either completely(Liger, male Mules), or mostly sterile(female mules).
Disputable (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
you do not have specific identifier you can assign 100%, you have a continuum
Why is that a problem? It's the paradox of the heap. A grain of sand is not a heap. Two grains are not a heap (in my view). Three grains are not. But as you continue, at some point it is a heap. Many people would disagree on the exact number of grains of sand that make a heap. Yet heaps exist.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem is that the word "race" encompasses both biological differences and social ones. Even worse, we aren't entirely sure which is which in every case.
In practice, 90% of what people mean when they say "race" is purely artificial social division.
Re: (Score:3)
In practice, 90% of what people mean when they say "race" is purely artificial social division.
But everyone knows what you're talking about when you say "a black guy" or "an asian guy" or "a white guy." Having to say "this collection of human haplogroups" or "individuals of recent European descent" is just a type of tone policing. The "race is just as social construct" talk only comes out when it's a right winger speaking about race. You'll never find the leftists chanting "The Social Construct of 'Black' Describing Human Haplogroups Common to Peoples of Recent African Descent's Lives Matter!"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Muslim is not a race.
You wouldn't know it based on the reaction to the travel ban President Trump tried.
Re: (Score:2)
What's that got to do with it?
Oh, you mean there are people who conflate religion with race? Yes, people are stupid, news at 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you start arguing that way, then you'll find that there is no racism anywhere because there are no races in the sense racists would assume. The idea of a phenotypical race is considered ill-conceived and plays no substantial role in biology for a long time. Nazi talk about races is pseudo-science and everybody knows it, since the time we're able to map genes.
But "racism" as it is used nowadays, has nothing to do with races anyway, it's about marginalizing and discriminating minorities, as every edu
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that people that are against muslims are against the religion itself, not the social class or where they did born.
To be racist by your definition would be to give an OK pass to for example "white" middle class US citizens that converted into the radical islam, which is not the case.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, Being against Islam or Christianity is not racist at all, it's quite reasonable in my point of view. Being against something or someone doesn't make anyone a racist, certainly not according to the definition that I gave. (Did you even read my post?) Second, this is not about 'my' definition, I'm not Humpty-Dumpty, it's about the meaning of the word, which for a long time has had nothing to do with races and also isn't meant that way according to law. It concerns the deliberate discrimination o
Re:Racist (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't need to be born in the middle east to explode yourself for allah.
Re: (Score:2)
But likewise being born in the middle east doesn't mean that you automatically think blowing yourself up for your imaginary buddy is a swell idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. But the odds will be higher if you born in a place where the radical islam took over, which obviously means that if you take away the radical islam, you reduce or remove the people willing to blow up for allah.
Re: (Score:2)
Taking away radical religion is easier said than done.
Question: Would you fall for the bullshit? Would you blow yourself up for the promise of a great afterlife or some petty cash for your loved ones? Probably not. Why? 'cause you enjoy this life.
We simply have to export that. Give people a reason to live and something to lose and they will no longer throw their life away. As long as people think that death and the weak promise of maybe something cool in the next life, provided there is one, is better than
Re: (Score:3)
These people are promised 72 virgins and the ability to designate a couple people to go straight into heaven WITHOUT judgment after death if they die a "martyr's" death while killing infidels.
What the ad brochure doesn't tell you is the gender of the virgins.
In other words, they're stuck for eternity in a Star Trek convention.
Re: (Score:2)
IOW, they're at about the same place that mainstream Christianity was a few centuries back.
Re: (Score:2)
They're at the same place that Christianity was at during the dark ages, yet they don't live in the dark ages. They have all the advantages of global communication and travel, widespread literacy, huge advances in science, easy access to the arts, literature, history, etc.
It's amazing that a huge group of people people living today can still be so backwards, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, who went and handed the religious nutjob modpoints?
Re: (Score:2)
People who come to the conclusion that religion is a mental disease (ICD-10, F22.0, delusion) are not required to be religious. Hence they are quite possibly capable of independent and logical thinking.
Racism is something different (Score:5, Insightful)
People are claiming this to justify their anti-Islam positions. Talking about this is racist.
No, it's not. Liberals need to stop name calling and get a clue:
RACISM IS NOT DEFINED AS "SOMETHING THAT DISAGREES WITH THE LEFT!"
We CAN talk about issues without being racist, holding racist beliefs, or being prejudiced.
Grow the fuck up and have adult conversations.
It seems that many terrorist attacks in recent years have come from Muslims. This might be a false perception because of media bias, so
1) Does anyone have strong statistical evidence that the problem is Islam, and not a different common feature?
2) Would it make sense to bar entry to the US from certain world areas?
3) Would it make sense to put Muslims under enhanced scrutiny domestically?
As an anecdote to #3, I heard news articles saying that the local Imam in Florida was calling for death to gays [youtube.com] before the nightclub attack. Are such overt calls for violence protected as free speech or freedom of religion, or should we make certain exceptions?
Discuss. None of these questions is racist, or indicate inherent racism to an intelligent person. (But it might to liberals.)
Racism is group think (collective punishment) (Score:2, Flamebait)
I heard news articles saying that the local [religous leaders] calling for death to gays
These are not left/right questions, it is a free speech issue and a rascism/protectionism issue. Here in Scandinavia terror spread from the far right is actually a bigger concern, if we look at terror attacks on our soil. These acts of terror are not done by muslims, and by your logic we should start looking harder at the far right and prohibiting their leaders to express themselves in media. We already hinder free speech, and it is helping to some extent to have consequences when you call for the death of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You seem to regularly fall for the extremist left wing nutbag douchebag comments every time to take the advantage of writing an otherwise excellent post but using it as a vehicle to basically shit on "liberals".
Do you think that this is helping? Because to me (as a non-American who, like most of the rest of the world, are just baffled by almost everything that happens there) it seems posts like this just exacerbate the divide and try to frame everything in black and white issues.
I agree that there are "libe
Re: (Score:2)
As an anecdote to #3, I heard news articles saying that the local Imam in Florida was calling for death to gays [youtube.com] before the nightclub attack. Are such overt calls for violence protected as free speech or freedom of religion, or should we make certain exceptions?
So it's ok if a Christian preacher does the same thing, but if an Imam does it it's bad?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As an anecdote to #3, I heard news articles saying that the local Imam in Florida was calling for death to gays [youtube.com] before the nightclub attack. Are such overt calls for violence protected as free speech or freedom of religion, or should we make certain exceptions?
So it's ok if a Christian preacher does the same thing, but if an Imam does it it's bad?
If a white Christian says something vile, it's just them exercising their right to free speech. If a brown Muslim does the same, the world is ending.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Does anyone have strong statistical evidence that the problem is Islam, and not a different common feature?
The percentage of terrorists shouting "Allahu akbar". To be more serious though, in unruly areas the border between terrorism, civil war, insurrection, sectarian fighting, war crimes, genocide and general lawlessness is quite blurry so it's hard to give a number everyone will agree on. But in Europe islamic terrorism has been the leading cause [datagraver.com] of terror in the 21st century. And unlike much of the terror of the past, it seems designed to create mass carnage and maximize civilian casualties. Same with the US
Re: (Score:2)
While the IRA could be defined as being Roman Catholic, the reason for there terrorism was not prima facie down to their religion, and their goals where not in any way shape or form religious in nature.
The reason behind the IRA terrorism was the blatant and overt oppression of Roman Catholics by Protestants in Northern Ireland. Their goal was/is to succeed from the United Kingdom and unite with the rest of the island of Ireland and free themselves from the really quite horrendous oppression they where under
Re: (Score:2)
Aww, isn't that sweet? I've got modded down for replying in a measured way, responding with logical arguments and avoiding ad hominem attacks on people that disagree with me. So much for the "Grow the fuck up and have adult conversations" part of things. You see, this is the real reason why there is no adult debate about these and other difficult issues - us on the so-called left are trying, we really are, but you guys aren't playing ball, and I think we all know why: you don't have any arguments, and you d
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Islam is not a race.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Talking about this is racist.
Nice trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure he didn't love running into trucks.
Then again, who am I to judge Swedes for their crazy fetishes...
Re: (Score:2)
I know lots of people who are fucking like crazy but alas, no success.
One of them mentioned that we'd need a female, but I still think that's crazy talk. Females, like any of those would magically appear in our basements.
Re: (Score:2)
Thought about it. It's still bullshit. But thanks for wasting 2 seconds of my work day, I appreciate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey! My grandpa died in a concentration camp!
He fell drunk off a watch tower. But that's not the point now.
Sorry, but let's say my country has a history of some idiot pretending that the answer to everything bad on the planet is "the Jews". Guess what, it doesn't take the "eternal Jew" for shit to hit the fan. People all over the globe are selfish bastards, that's not limited to a certain ethnic group.
But to answer your question, no, I'm not Jewish. At least according to a document that belonged to my grand
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, funny enough, I have proof that you'd probably even accept. I just honestly don't really care enough about the opinion of someone like you.
Because I know how it continues. I've been there before. You'd just lament how horrible it is that a good decent Aryan like me is falling for the Jewish plot of total annihilation of the human race. Except Jews, of course. And Commies, let's not forget about the Commies.
For some odd reason, the likes of you don't die out. The most recent idiocy is how Jews cons
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It is well known that most misery in the world is caused by muslims.
No, it isn't.
I'd say that "men" and "corporations" go much higher on that list. And I see no indication that Islam causes more misery than other Abrahamic religions; i.e. plenty of misery for all of them.
Seen from an outside perspective, they're all just minor variations on a theme.
Can a muslim change its barbarism? Can a leopard change its spots? It's in the genes, stupid!
Faith is genetic?
The propensity for faith might be genetic. There might have been benefits in humanity's distant path, where subjecting to authority and taking what they said at face value no matter what increased survival. It