Criticism of Islam is not a hate crime, nor racist, nor enophobic

Announcements Posted on
Four things that unis think matter more than league tables 08-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jake4198)
    It is a fact? Well, let's interrogate the data.

    The first promulgation you made was that Trump supporters are white supremacists. According to the data provided by P.P.P, 16% of Donald Trump supporters believe that whites are the superior race. In other words, 84% - or an overwhelming majority of Donald Trump supporters - do not believe that whites are the superior race. I don't know where you got "more than 30%" from.

    The second promulgation you made was that "an unacceptable number" of Trump supporters believe that Lincoln was wrong to free the slaves. According to the New York Times, 20% of Trump supporters believe Lincoln was wrong. However, this is not verifiable. Even though the Times are claiming 20% of Trump supporters disagree with Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, the YouGov data neither confirms nor denies these claims. In fact, the only data YouGov provides on the matter is that 13% of all Americans either strongly or somewhat disapproved of it. Breakdown by demographics, age and political affiliation were not provided - and given the New York Times' liberal bias - the claim is therefore unverifiable.

    The third promulgation you made was that "38% [of Trump] supporters believe that the South should have won the Civil War". However, this question is very broad and doesn't define the context, hence why the number of people replying as "don't know" is higher than those who agreed and disagreed for all the Republican Primary Candidates. According to research conducted in Alabama, over 60% of correspondents said that the American Civil War was more about states' rights as oppose to giving rights to the slaves. This trend isn't just of relevance in Alabama, however; according to Pew, over 48% of all Americans believe the Civil War was more about states' rights than it was about slavery, so therefore saying you believe the South should have won the Civil War is not the same as saying you support slavery, the enslavement of blacks or the oppression of blacks.

    The fourth promulgation you made was that "17% of Trump supporters believe in banning the LGB+ community from entering the US". I don't know how this compares to places like Saudi Arabia which sentences gays to death, or the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries which imprisons its own people for having same sex relations, but if it fits your narrative then fine. Nevertheless, once again, the overwhelming majority of Republicans do not believe in disallowing LGB+ persons from entering the United States.

    The final promulgation you made was that "74% of all Trump supporters believe in banning Muslims". This is not true. According to the data 80% of Trump supporters believe in banning Muslims from entering the United States, but this is not the same as saying they want to ban all Muslims - or Islam. The notion to ban Muslims' entry into the United States was proposed by Donald Trump in order to ensure the protection of US citizens - as vetting procedures Trump argues are not sufficient.

    Much of the data you provided does not compare with the abhorrent abuses and heinous views which are pertinent in the Islamic Community. While I'm not going to say that there isn't racism among Trump supporters, the racist elements of his movement represent a small minority of his overall campaign. If you look at black Trump supporters over YouTube, and don't submit yourself to calculated bias, the reception they receive from so-called white supremacists is unanimously positive. Indeed, Milo's interview with Diamond and Silk was an indictment to how inclusive the Republican movement has become.

    So yes, maybe there are KKK members, hysterical southern rednecks and genuine racists who associate with Donald Trump. However, they do not define the movement and the incessant need to paint Trump supporters as closet racists is unfounded. The data might show some uncomfortable truths, but on the whole, they account for a minority. Islam is more of a problem because the data I provided actually had some fruit behind it. Whereas "17% of Trump supporters" might believe in banning LGB+ persons from entering the US, that does not correlate to over 50% of British Muslims believing against homosexuality - and the imprisonment, prosecution and execution of gays in many Muslim countries around the world.

    You have used data, that of which you provided, to paint a misconstrued and false picture of Trump supporters as a collective. However, the data you provided disproves your prejudice. Again, although there were some uncomfortable readings from the report, they represent - on the whole - the minority. The reason Islam is of particular interest is because the aforesaid vehement views existent in the Islamic community are not commonplace among a select few, but rather an overwhelming majority.
    That's still an awful lot of people holding some pretty unacceptable beliefs. And those people can, and should, be criticised and challenged in the same way as Muslims holding unacceptable beliefs, or any other ideological group that supports discrimination, oppression or violence on the grounds of another's nature or beliefs, should be criticised and challenged.

    Note: "Criticism and challenge" does not involve discrimination, oppression or violence.
    As Evelyn Hall (paraphrasing Voltaire) said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jake4198)
    It is a fact? Well, let's interrogate the data.

    The first promulgation you made was that Trump supporters are white supremacists. According to the data provided by P.P.P, 16% of Donald Trump supporters believe that whites are the superior race. In other words, 84% - or an overwhelming majority of Donald Trump supporters - do not believe that whites are the superior race. I don't know where you got "more than 30%" from.
    Wrong - I said that White Supremacists have flocked to Trump, which they have if the words of leaders of several White Supremacist groups are anything to go by. I have never come across a presidential candidate with as much support from these groups.

    The second promulgation you made was that "an unacceptable number" of Trump supporters believe that Lincoln was wrong to free the slaves. According to the New York Times, 20% of Trump supporters believe Lincoln was wrong. However, this is not verifiable. Even though the Times are claiming 20% of Trump supporters disagree with Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, the YouGov data neither confirms nor denies these claims. In fact, the only data YouGov provides on the matter is that 13% of all Americans either strongly or somewhat disapproved of it. Breakdown by demographics, age and political affiliation were not provided - and given the New York Times' liberal bias - the claim is therefore unverifiable.
    Anyone can claim that a source that shows results that they do not want it to show is biased. By and large, NYT is considered to be a reliable source of news overall.

    The third promulgation you made was that "38% [of Trump] supporters believe that the South should have won the Civil War". However, this question is very broad and doesn't define the context, hence why the number of people replying as "don't know" is higher than those who agreed and disagreed for all the Republican Primary Candidates. According to research conducted in Alabama, over 60% of correspondents said that the American Civil War was more about states' rights as oppose to giving rights to the slaves. This trend isn't just of relevance in Alabama, however; according to Pew, over 48% of all Americans believe the Civil War was more about states' rights than it was about slavery, so therefore saying you believe the South should have won the Civil War is not the same as saying you support slavery, the enslavement of blacks or the oppression of blacks.
    38% is still a very high number, it doesn't matter that the majority replied that they did not know. If the South had won the civil war then slavery would have been abolished later, so the reason why it happened in the first place is irrelevant.

    The fourth promulgation you made was that "17% of Trump supporters believe in banning the LGB+ community from entering the US". I don't know how this compares to places like Saudi Arabia which sentences gays to death, or the overwhelming majority of Muslim countries which imprisons its own people for having same sex relations, but if it fits your narrative then fine. Nevertheless, once again, the overwhelming majority of Republicans do not believe in disallowing LGB+ persons from entering the United States.
    This isn't about Saudi Arabia though, is it? The fact that the number is that high for people who are living in a democratic country where discrimination against LGBT people is against the law is telling.

    The final promulgation you made was that "74% of all Trump supporters believe in banning Muslims". This is not true. According to the data 80% of Trump supporters believe in banning Muslims from entering the United States, but this is not the same as saying they want to ban all Muslims - or Islam. The notion to ban Muslims' entry into the United States was proposed by Donald Trump in order to ensure the protection of US citizens - as vetting procedures Trump argues are not sufficient.
    The question did not ask whether or not they wanted to ban "some" Muslims, I am going by the question that they were asked and the response to that question.

    Much of the data you provided does not compare with the abhorrent abuses and heinous views which are pertinent in the Islamic Community. While I'm not going to say that there isn't racism among Trump supporters, the racist elements of his movement represent a small minority of his overall campaign. If you look at black Trump supporters over YouTube, and don't submit yourself to calculated bias, the reception they receive from so-called white supremacists is unanimously positive. Indeed, Milo's interview with Diamond and Silk was an indictment to how inclusive the Republican movement has become.
    VERY few Black American voters support Trump, and there is a reason for that. I do not automatically judge Trump voters and label them as racist but if it's OK to judge Muslims based on stats then it is fair play when the same is done to Trump supporters.

    So yes, maybe there are KKK members, hysterical southern rednecks and genuine racists who associate with Donald Trump. However, they do not define the movement and the incessant need to paint Trump supporters as closet racists is unfounded. The data might show some uncomfortable truths, but on the whole, they account for a minority. Islam is more of a problem because the data I provided actually had some fruit behind it. Whereas "17% of Trump supporters" might believe in banning LGB+ persons from entering the US, that does not correlate to over 50% of British Muslims believing against homosexuality - and the imprisonment, prosecution and execution of gays in many Muslim countries around the world.
    Trump voters are concentrated into one country, and nearly half have expressed unfavourable views of African Americans. I'm just saying that if you can generalise Muslims as having hateful views based on stats, saying that there is nothing wrong with being "tough" on them on that basis, that is applicable to Trump voters true. A similar percentage have expressed intolerant views to the British Muslims who have done the same.

    You have used data, that of which you provided, to paint a misconstrued and false picture of Trump supporters as a collective. However, the data you provided disproves your prejudice. Again, although there were some uncomfortable readings from the report, they represent - on the whole - the minority. The reason Islam is of particular interest is because the aforesaid vehement views existent in the Islamic community are not commonplace among a select few, but rather an overwhelming majority.
    Nearly 50% of racists isn't a tiny minority.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Wrong - I said that White Supremacists have flocked to Trump, which they have if the words of leaders of several White Supremacist groups are anything to go by. I have never come across a presidential candidate with as much support from these groups.
    Yet, 84% of Donald Trump supporters do not believe that white is the superior race. Although 16% is an unfortunate number, it doesn't represent the majority of Trump supporters and therefore using his appeal to supremacist groups as a pretext for you to hold prejudicial views surrounding his entire campaign is unfounded and therefore irrational. Unless Donald Trump promulgates a policy or expresses outright racism against a particular minority group, then such accusations are immature and benign.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Anyone can claim that a source that shows results that they do not want it to show is biased. By and large, NYT is considered to be a reliable source of news overall.
    Why do you constantly make claims without providing evidence? The Times is not considered one of the most reliable news sources. According to a survey conducted by Pew Research, only 34% of respondents considered the Times as trustworthy, and its overall ranking was even less Fox News. The Times itself admits that most of its readers consider themselves "liberal" and it's a known rule that the NYT is liberal, and the WSJ is conservative.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    38% is still a very high number, it doesn't matter that the majority replied that they did not know. If the South had won the civil war then slavery would have been abolished later, so the reason why it happened in the first place is irrelevant.
    No, of course the context matters. You are trying to infer that 38% believing the South should have won the Civil War implies racism, however the reasons behind the Civil War are inferred differently. While some believe it was to free the slaves, others saw it as an attack on states' rights. Unless the question specifically asks if you believe in the enslavement or oppression of blacks, you cannot make false claims.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    This isn't about Saudi Arabia though, is it? The fact that the number is that high for people who are living in a democratic country where discrimination against LGBT people is against the law is telling.
    The number isn't that high, though, is it? 52% of British Muslims believe homosexuality should illegal, in other words, more than half. Yet, you believe it's of relevance to complain about an overwhelming minority of Trump supporters because 13% believe in banning gays from entering the country?

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    The question did not ask whether or not they wanted to ban "some" Muslims, I am going by the question that they were asked and the response to that question.
    You said 74% of Trump supporters want "to ban Muslims". This isn't true. According to P.P.P. - the data you provided - 80% of Trump supporters want to ban Muslims' entry into the US; that is not the same as "banning Muslims" or Islam.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    VERY few Black American voters support Trump, and there is a reason for that. I do not automatically judge Trump voters and label them as racist but if it's OK to judge Muslims based on stats then it is fair play when the same is done to Trump supporters.
    Here's the difference, though. Although there are a small number of Trump supporters who do hold twisted views, they represent - as a while - a minority. Muslims, however - as a whole - do not represent a minority and many of their views are of pertinence among a majority of the Muslim community as outlined in my earlier posts. You cannot judge Trump supporters on the data you provided because they represent a minority.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Trump voters are concentrated into one country, and nearly half have expressed unfavourable views of African Americans. I'm just saying that if you can generalise Muslims as having hateful views based on stats, saying that there is nothing wrong with being "tough" on them on that basis, that is applicable to Trump voters true. A similar percentage have expressed intolerant views to the British Muslims who have done the same
    Trump supporters are concentrated into one country? I don't know what this means. I assume you mean Trump supporters are concentrated in the South, but what's your point? The data you provided me does not show that nearly half of Trump supporters expressed unfavourable views towards African Americans.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Nearly 50% of racists isn't a tiny minority.
    Again, where has this "50%" come from?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    if it's a case of tackling domestic abuse, polygamous marriages, homophobia and the like then I disagree that this would count as being "tough" on Muslims, as none of these things should be treated as acceptable in any community. Nothing that infringes on the rights of others should be.

    But when people talk about being "tough" on Muslims, I have a feeling that this entails more than that.
    I would say that no one knows exactly what "being tough" means

    you are basically saying that "tackling domestic abuse , polygamous marriages, homophobia and the like " does not count as "being tough" because you disagree with those practices, while - since you don't disagree with some other practices - tackling them would, presumably, count on the other hand as "being tough"

    this is all extremely subjective : just as the concept of not "infringing on the rights of others" (which rights exactly ? which infringements ? etc etc) is a fuzzy, general principle which is meaningless in absolute terms, and needs to be specified in detail

    and, as usual, the devil is in the details

    best
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    personally, I think that Islam will change : but it will take a long, long time
    I'm not sure if you're aware but the day that Islam changes, its prophesised in the quran to be the beginning of the end of days. So the day muslims accept that it has to be changed it's, quite literally the end of the universe or at least the human race. Well, I can't say I'd want to be around for that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jake4198)
    Yet, 84% of Donald Trump supporters do not believe that white is the superior race. Although 16% is an unfortunate number, it doesn't represent the majority of Trump supporters and therefore using his appeal to supremacist groups as a pretext for you to hold prejudicial views surrounding his entire campaign is unfounded and therefore irrational. Unless Donald Trump promulgates a policy or expresses outright racism against a particular minority group, then such accusations are immature and benign.
    Wrong again; 69% disagreed, so 31% did not disagree. That's double the number that you claim.

    Why do you constantly make claims without providing evidence? The Times is not considered one of the most reliable news sources. According to a survey conducted by Pew Research, only 34% of respondents considered the Times as trustworthy, and its overall ranking was even less Fox News. The Times itself admits that most of its readers consider themselves "liberal" and it's a known rule that the NYT is liberal, and the WSJ is conservative.
    Every newspaper as a political bias, some more than others. The fact remains that it is one of the major US sources. And I provided plenty of evidence to show that there is an issue with racism with Trump supporters. You're just in denial.


    No, of course the context matters. You are trying to infer that 38% believing the South should have won the Civil War implies racism, however the reasons behind the Civil War are inferred differently. While some believe it was to free the slaves, others saw it as an attack on states' rights. Unless the question specifically asks if you believe in the enslavement or oppression of blacks, you cannot make false claims.
    Well, if there is so little regard for the people who were enslaved due to their race that you don't believe that the outcome which freed them was the best one then yes, that does suggest racism.


    The number isn't that high, though, is it? 52% of British Muslims believe homosexuality should illegal, in other words, more than half. Yet, you believe it's of relevance to complain about an overwhelming minority of Trump supporters because 13% believe in banning gays from entering the country?
    Well, that just goes to show that the issue with racism among Trump supporters is much higher than rabid homophobia. And with nearly half expressing racist views, that's hardly something to brush aside.


    You said 74% of Trump supporters want "to ban Muslims". This isn't true. According to P.P.P. - the data you provided - 80% of Trump supporters want to ban Muslims' entry into the US; that is not the same as "banning Muslims" or Islam.
    The only thing that the US would have the power to ban Muslims from is entering their country, so that is obviously what I meant. And that obviously displays bigotry towards Muslims.

    Here's the difference, though. Although there are a small number of Trump supporters who do hold twisted views, they represent - as a while - a minority. Muslims, however - as a whole - do not represent a minority and many of their views are of pertinence among a majority of the Muslim community as outlined in my earlier posts. You cannot judge Trump supporters on the data you provided because they represent a minority.

    Trump supporters are concentrated into one country? I don't know what this means. I assume you mean Trump supporters are concentrated in the South, but what's your point? The data you provided me does not show that nearly half of Trump supporters expressed unfavourable views towards African Americans.

    Again, where has this "50%" come from?
    The nearly 50% comes from the stats that I posted. Those who thought that Blacks were more violent, less intelligent and so forth. That is not a tiny minority and goes to show that you lot have issues with racism just as Muslims have issues with homophobia, but you wouldn't like to be generalised the same way that you generalise Muslims.

    My point is that comparing a Trump supporters to Muslims all over the world is not a valid comparison, as opposed to comparing them to Muslims in the UK or the US. If Trump supporters lived in various countries and had several sects and influences, it would be another story. That being said there is still a big problem with Muslims in the UK (and possibly the US) with homophobia, as there is with Trump supporters and racism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    I would say that no one knows exactly what "being tough" means

    you are basically saying that "tackling domestic abuse , polygamous marriages, homophobia and the like " does not count as "being tough" because you disagree with those practices, while - since you don't disagree with some other practices - tackling them would, presumably, count on the other hand as "being tough"

    this is all extremely subjective : just as the concept of not "infringing on the rights of others" (which rights exactly ? which infringements ? etc etc) is a fuzzy, general principle which is meaningless in absolute terms, and needs to be specified in detail

    and, as usual, the devil is in the details

    best
    Not exactly; the issue is that these are practices which harm others, whereas if they didn't then people should be allowed to live as they pleased. For an example: I don't agree with homophobia and I don't agree with the hijab. The former harms others and infringes on their rights, the latter does not, as long as it is worn by choice. So discriminating against LGBT people on the grounds of religious conviction should be tackled. I don't agree with the hijab but banning it would be equivalent to treating women like children who are incapable of making their own decisions, which is just as what Islam does.

    I meant incidents such as infringing on someone else's right to safety and security (as is the case with domestic abuse) or someone's right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

    I suppose that more detail is needed, but tackling the issues that I previously mentioned wouldn't result in singling out Muslims, as they are being tackled in all other communities as well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Not exactly; the issue is that these are practices which harm others, whereas if they didn't then people should be allowed to live as they pleased. For an example: I don't agree with homophobia and I don't agree with the hijab. The former harms others and infringes on their rights, the latter does not, as long as it is worn by choice. So discriminating against LGBT people on the grounds of religious conviction should be tackled. I don't agree with the hijab but banning it would be equivalent to treating women like children who are incapable of making their own decisions, which is just as what Islam does.

    I meant incidents such as infringing on someone else's right to safety and security (as is the case with domestic abuse) or someone's right to freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexuality.

    .
    you are entering here a very fuzzy area

    what does exactly "infringing on someone else's rights mean" ? does a person have, say, the right to sexually segregated health, education, leisure facilities ? what if some people would consider that the additional expenditure involved would infringe on their own rights ? does any person have a right to hearing a "call to prayer" according to his/her religious preferences ? what about the right of people not to be disturbed ? what about the security risks involved in people hiding their faces with niqabs, burqas etc ? what about the "right" of people not to be offended by insults to their religion, by blasphemy of their religious figures etc and the "right" of other people to freedom of expression ? what about the "right" of people to ritual slaughter according to their religious precepts and "animal rights" ?

    finally, how about the "right" to free movement for migrants and the "right" of citizens to decide on who should be admitted to their countries and who shouldn't ?

    as you see, "not infringing on someone's rights" is just a catch phrase , because no one knows exactly which those rights are, and where one group's rights end and where another group's ones begin

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    I suppose that more detail is needed,
    how very true ...
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    but tackling the issues that I previously mentioned wouldn't result in singling out Muslims, as they are being tackled in all other communities as well
    we are focussing mainly on Muslims because right now they are the most vocal and even "visible" (because of hijab/niqab) community. Also, of course, recent terrorist attacks have brought the issue of Muslim integration to the forefront

    In the past, one would have focussed (in the UK) e.g on Catholics' rights, their immigration flows, their civil/political rights, the Irish issue etc

    best
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    you are entering here a very fuzzy area

    what does exactly "infringing on someone else's rights mean" ? does a person have, say, the right to sexually segregated health, education, leisure facilities ? what if some people would consider that the additional expenditure involved would infringe on their own rights ? does any person have a right to hearing a "call to prayer" according to his/her religious preferences ? what about the right of people not to be disturbed ? what about the security risks involved in people hiding their faces with niqabs, burqas etc ? what about the "right" of people not to be offended by insults to their religion, by blasphemy of their religious figures etc and the "right" of other people to freedom of expression ? what about the "right" of people to ritual slaughter according to their religious precepts and "animal rights" ?

    finally, how about the "right" to free movement for migrants and the "right" of citizens to decide on who should be admitted to their countries and who shouldn't ?

    as you see, "not infringing on someone's rights" is just a catch phrase , because no one knows exactly which those rights are, and where one group's rights end and where another group's ones begin

    how very true ... we are focussing mainly on Muslims because right now they are the most vocal and even "visible" (because of hijab/niqab) community. Also, of course, recent terrorist attacks have brought the issue of Muslim integration to the forefront

    In the past, one would have focussed (in the UK) e.g on Catholics' rights, their immigration flows, their civil/political rights, the Irish issue etc

    best
    As of now, fundamental human rights are determined by the UDHR and similar legal instruments, which mention none of those rights. Moreover segregated education for one thing is available for people who want it, it is not mainstream. No system is perfect but one that looks to ensure that everyone is equal will avoid segregation, as that will almost inevitably result in one group having access to better facilities than other groups.

    In terms of animal rights, killing an animal for food is killing an animal for food, and is messed u either way. Using a method (which doesn't always work) that will stop it from feeling pain during the last few seconds of its life doesn't make it humane all of a sudden. That being said, while I am not sure about the procedure for Kosher slaughter, the majority of animals are stunned before Halal slaughter in the UK.

    Again, the right not to be offended by "blasphemy" is not universally recognised, the right to freedom of expression is. The same applies to freedom of movement in between countries which are not bound by a treaty that permits it. I might have gone on a bit of a tangent by expressing my views on certain matters but what I was referring to were the universally recognised human rights under international law, although they are ever changing. Of course, opinions differ on what should or should not be a universal human right but as it stands now, they fall into set categories.

    I am aware of that, my point is that the rights of Muslims in the UK are no different to the rights of anyone else. It's not to say that only Muslims are barred from assaulting someone for "insulting" their religion while everyone else has the free reign to do so. What is legal and illegal for Muslims in the UK is legal and illegal for everyone else, and universal human rights normally act as a guideline in determining this. That differs from enacting a law that was specifically designed to single out Muslims, that's why the Burkini ban (for an instance) caused so much controversy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Wrong again; 69% disagreed, so 31% did not disagree. That's double the number that you claim.
    Wrong again.

    According to the data provided, only 16% of Donald Trump supported said - categorically - that they believe that whites are the superior race, with 14% replying as unsure. Although that 14% didn't disagree with the statement, they also didn't agree with it, either. Nevertheless, 69% of Trump supporters stated that they do not believe that the white race is superior, which represents an overwhelming majority of his supporters and the 16% - or the 31% at an absolute push - still only accounts for a minority of his overall campaign. The reason the ill-sides of the Trump campaign cannot be compared to Islam is because Trump's far-right supporter base only account for a minority of his overall movement, whereas radical Islamic thought is pertinent among a majority of Muslims as outlined in my earlier post(s).

    Even so, the question itself is rather bizarre from an intellectual disposition. There has been numerous studies differentiating the structural and intellectual composition of different human species, with there being an inverse correlation between intellectual excellence and physical capability. Black Africans, for instance, often dominate in sport - namely running - because their structural composition, as a result of evolution, has meant that they are naturally much more physically capable than other groups like Caucasians and Mongoloids. Mongoloids, however, often dominate when it comes to intellectual excellence. If you look at the academic attainment of far-East Asians in comparison to that of other ethnic/ race groups you will find a common theme. According to a report conducted in 2006 by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the data showed that among five year old children (in the US), Asians perform much better than their white, Hispanic and black counterparts.

    If the question was are blacks a superior race, physically - I'd answer yes.

    If the question was are far-East Asians a superior race, intellectually - I'd answer yes.

    The point I'm making is you cannot the 14% replying as "unsure" - or even the 16% replying as "yes" - as outright racists when you don't have cogent evidence on the matter.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Every newspaper as a political bias, some more than others. The fact remains that it is one of the major US sources. And I provided plenty of evidence to show that there is an issue with racism with Trump supporters. You're just in denial.
    Not every newspaper has a political bias: Reuters and the BBC being notable examples. If you use a source which has a longstanding bias favouring one side of the political spectrum, it's your responsibility to provide conclusive evidence from a non-partisan perspective. Although the Times did provide a link to the YouGov survey, the results didn't confirm (nor deny) the Times' remarks and therefore they remain unverifiable as no other news outlet was able to confirm them, either.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Well, if there is so little regard for the people who were enslaved due to their race that you don't believe that the outcome which freed them was the best one then yes, that does suggest racism.
    No, it doesn't. I don't know what they're teaching you at law school, but using unfounded assumptions which you cannot support with cogent and critical analysis does not justify your making skewed remarks. To some, the Civil War was never about the freeing of slaves. It was about states' rights - and even those campaigning to end slavery weren't doing so because they were against the oppression of blacks - Abraham Lincoln being a notable example:

    “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races”

    "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Well, that just goes to show that the issue with racism among Trump supporters is much higher than rabid homophobia. And with nearly half expressing racist views, that's hardly something to brush aside.
    According to the same data you provided: 22% of Clinton supporters believe that blacks are less intelligent; 32% of Clinton supporters believe that blacks are more prone to criminality; and 25% of Clinton supporters believe that blacks are more lazy.

    (I will answer this in more detail further down).

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    The only thing that the US would have the power to ban Muslims from is entering their country, so that is obviously what I meant. And that obviously displays bigotry towards Muslims.
    Bigotry is synonymous for intolerant. Donald Trump is not intolerant of Muslims. Just because he's championing a policy which would prevent Muslims from entering the country, this doesn't mean he is intolerant of Muslims and nor does it mean that he believes all Muslims are terrorists.

    To use an example of Muhammad Ali, in an interview he did back in the 70s, he said in favour of black separatism because he couldn't trust "white people". Of course, he went on to say not all white people are bad - and this was in a time of unrivaled racial violence - but he made an excellent analogy: if there were ten people, and nine of them wished you no harm, but one of them did, would you invite all ten of them in knowing that one of them wishes you harm?

    Muhammad Ali made those comments at a time where racism and violence against the black community - by a notable minority of whites - was existent and present. Donald Trump is making the same sort of comments at a time where terrorism and violence - by a notable of minority of Muslims - is also existent and present.

    (Original post by WBZ144)
    The nearly 50% comes from the stats that I posted. Those who thought that Blacks were more violent, less intelligent and so forth. That is not a tiny minority and goes to show that you lot have issues with racism just as Muslims have issues with homophobia, but you wouldn't like to be generalised the same way that you generalise Muslims.

    My point is that comparing a Trump supporters to Muslims all over the world is not a valid comparison, as opposed to comparing them to Muslims in the UK or the US. If Trump supporters lived in various countries and had several sects and influences, it would be another story. That being said there is still a big problem with Muslims in the UK (and possibly the US) with homophobia, as there is with Trump supporters and racism.
    Alright, so let's interrogate the percentage table you provided where I now know you were getting these statistics from. The first problem I can see the data is referring to each group as "whites" and "blacks". It's exceptionally broad. Does it mean all whites/ blacks? Or some whites/ blacks? Personally, I would imply the questions asked as "generally", so I will address each of the questions as such.

    Are blacks - generally speaking - less intelligent than whites?

    My answer: yes.

    However, this is absolutely not because blacks are genetically less intelligent, but instead because of high single-parenthood rates, poverty and low income. Nevertheless, according to data released by the Department for Education, blacks are the lowest performing group in the United States achieving only 2.47 in their GPA as oppose to whites which achieve 2.88.

    Are blacks - generally speaking - more lazy than whites.

    My answer: don't know.

    Albeit there was a report showing that blacks, on average, produce less reports and receive less citations for academic work than their white and Asian counterparts, I didn't find any evidence to prove blacks were "more lazy" (or less productive) than whites for the same work.

    Are blacks - generally speaking - more rude than whites?

    My answer: don't know.

    Unable to find any data on the matter.

    Are blacks - generally speaking - more violent than whites?

    My answer: yes.

    However, this is absolutely not because blacks are genetically more violent, but instead because of high single-motherhood rates and high high-school dropout rates. According to the FBI, in 2014, blacks commit nearly 38% of all violent crime as oppose to whites who commit 59.4% of it. Proportionally, blacks - generally speaking - are more prone to violent crime.

    Are blacks - generally speaking - more criminal than whites?

    My answer: yes.

    However, this is absolutely not because blacks are genetically more criminal, but instead because of high single-motherhood rates and high high-school dropout rates. According to the FBI, in 2014, blacks account for nearly 28% of all crime as oppose to whites who commit 69.4% of it. Proportionally, blacks - generally speaking - are more prone to crime.

    Conclusion

    Although there's no evidence to suggest that blacks are more lazy or more rude than white people, there is systemic evidence to show that blacks - generally speaking - are more prone to violence, criminality and perform more poorly against their white, Hispanic and Asian peers. Of course, this is absolutely not because of genetics, but rather because of the socioeconomic conditions that blacks in the US are more frequent to. Indeed, there is no evidence that any disparity exists when these factors have been righted.

    Nevertheless, generally speaking, it is not racist nor untrue to make honest generalisations when there's cogent evidence to support such a conclusion. This is where political correctness is the problem. No, not all blacks are violent or criminal or less intelligent - but generally speaking, at present they are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    As of now, fundamental human rights are determined by the UDHR and similar legal instruments, .
    except that, e.g. many majority Muslim States actually support the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam,[an alternative document that says people have "freedom and right to a dignified life in accordance with the Islamic Shari'ah" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_...ights_in_Islam

    in any case, my objective was to raise the issue of the complexity of these matters : if we repeat phrases like "we shouldn't accept anything that infringes on the rights of others" we are just making largely imprecise and ultimately empty statements

    best
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jake4198)
    x
    Thank you for voicing your views on how you belong to half an inferior race (more violent, less intelligent, etc). That is my point proven on Trump supporters. I'm sure that the Muslims who are homophobic and misogynistic also justify their stance in one way or another.

    FYI intelligence is genetic, as is a tendency to violence.

    Life is too short to be repeating myself like a broken record. I provided the stats, so anyone can see it for themselves and judge.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    this.(referring to op)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Thank you for voicing your views on how you belong to half an inferior race (more violent, less intelligent, etc). That is my point proven on Trump supporters. I'm sure that the Muslims who are homophobic and misogynistic also justify their stance in one way or another.

    FYI intelligence is genetic, as is a tendency to violence.

    Life is too short to be repeating myself like a broken record. I provided the stats, so anyone can see it for themselves and judge.
    The data you provided was manipulated by the liberal media to convey an interpretation of Trump's support base as bigots and racists, by using broad statements which don't highlight specifics and failing to provide any context.

    For instance, if some is asked "are black people less intelligent than whites?", how are you meant to answer that? The question doesn't define whites nor blacks; and therefore it's left to the reader to fathom whether it's asking about "all" blacks/whites or "some" blacks/whites. As I said, if I was answering this question, I'd interpret it as "generally".

    It is not racist to say that black people - generally speaking - are less intelligent than whites. Systemic GPA and SAT data from the US's department of Education prove that these disparities exist and have existed since records began. Now, of course, that doesn't mean than all blacks are less intelligent than whites; and nor does it mean that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites - but the socioeconomic conditions which pre-exist in black households is reason behind why such a statement is true: as it is for crime and criminality as well.

    Obviously, we're not going to agree and I'm also not under the expectation that I can convert you into a "deplorable". However, the left need to stop being so hysterical. It is so tiresome; anything which is even somewhat controversial is instantly dismissed by the left as bigoted, sexist or homophobic - which is the left's tactic to silence discussion, virtue signal and demean conservatives for making reasonable arguments. By the way, given the latest polls, Trump is looking more and more likely to be POTUS by the day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Vividly clear;67499130]So because Muhammed is a prophet in Islam, and this disgusting act of having sex with a 9 year old girl happened a long time ago in a different society, it's not wrong at all?


    'Vividly clear' tut tut you don't seem to have much clarity. Prophet Muhammad did not consummate the marriage with the child. There were zero acts of pedophilia by him. Please dont slander other people's name just for the satisfaction of your ego. If you want proof I suggest you read his biography by Martin Lings. If you're so invested in a discussion about the actions of a man who lived 1400 years ago then it'd be well worth your time ordering a copy of the biography. You might as well grab a free copy of an English translation of the quran while you're at it (the quran project do them for free just order online) Happy reading!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jake4198)
    Wrong again.

    According to the data provided, only 16% of Donald Trump supported said - categorically - that they believe that whites are the superior race, with 14% replying as unsure. Although that 14% didn't disagree with the statement, they also didn't agree with it, either. Nevertheless, 69% of Trump supporters stated that they do not believe that the white race is superior, which represents an overwhelming majority of his supporters and the 16% - or the 31% at an absolute push - still only accounts for a minority of his overall campaign. The reason the ill-sides of the Trump campaign cannot be compared to Islam is because Trump's far-right supporter base only account for a minority of his overall movement, whereas radical Islamic thought is pertinent among a majority of Muslims as outlined in my earlier post(s).

    Even so, the question itself is rather bizarre from an intellectual disposition. There has been numerous studies differentiating the structural and intellectual composition of different human species, with there being an inverse correlation between intellectual excellence and physical capability. Black Africans, for instance, often dominate in sport - namely running - because their structural composition, as a result of evolution, has meant that they are naturally much more physically capable than other groups like Caucasians and Mongoloids. Mongoloids, however, often dominate when it comes to intellectual excellence. If you look at the academic attainment of far-East Asians in comparison to that of other ethnic/ race groups you will find a common theme. According to a report conducted in 2006 by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the data showed that among five year old children (in the US), Asians perform much better than their white, Hispanic and black counterparts.

    If the question was are blacks a superior race, physically - I'd answer yes.

    If the question was are far-East Asians a superior race, intellectually - I'd answer yes.

    The point I'm making is you cannot the 14% replying as "unsure" - or even the 16% replying as "yes" - as outright racists when you don't have cogent evidence on the matter.



    Not every newspaper has a political bias: Reuters and the BBC being notable examples. If you use a source which has a longstanding bias favouring one side of the political spectrum, it's your responsibility to provide conclusive evidence from a non-partisan perspective. Although the Times did provide a link to the YouGov survey, the results didn't confirm (nor deny) the Times' remarks and therefore they remain unverifiable as no other news outlet was able to confirm them, either.



    No, it doesn't. I don't know what they're teaching you at law school, but using unfounded assumptions which you cannot support with cogent and critical analysis does not justify your making skewed remarks. To some, the Civil War was never about the freeing of slaves. It was about states' rights - and even those campaigning to end slavery weren't doing so because they were against the oppression of blacks - Abraham Lincoln being a notable example:

    “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races”

    "If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves I would do it"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4



    According to the same data you provided: 22% of Clinton supporters believe that blacks are less intelligent; 32% of Clinton supporters believe that blacks are more prone to criminality; and 25% of Clinton supporters believe that blacks are more lazy.

    (I will answer this in more detail further down).



    Bigotry is synonymous for intolerant. Donald Trump is not intolerant of Muslims. Just because he's championing a policy which would prevent Muslims from entering the country, this doesn't mean he is intolerant of Muslims and nor does it mean that he believes all Muslims are terrorists.

    To use an example of Muhammad Ali, in an interview he did back in the 70s, he said in favour of black separatism because he couldn't trust "white people". Of course, he went on to say not all white people are bad - and this was in a time of unrivaled racial violence - but he made an excellent analogy: if there were ten people, and nine of them wished you no harm, but one of them did, would you invite all ten of them in knowing that one of them wishes you harm?

    Muhammad Ali made those comments at a time where racism and violence against the black community - by a notable minority of whites - was existent and present. Donald Trump is making the same sort of comments at a time where terrorism and violence - by a notable of minority of Muslims - is also existent and present.



    Alright, so let's interrogate the percentage table you provided where I now know you were getting these statistics from. The first problem I can see the data is referring to each group as "whites" and "blacks". It's exceptionally broad. Does it mean all whites/ blacks? Or some whites/ blacks? Personally, I would imply the questions asked as "generally", so I will address each of the questions as such.

    Are blacks - generally speaking - less intelligent than whites?

    My answer: yes.

    However, this is absolutely not because blacks are genetically less intelligent, but instead because of high single-parenthood rates, poverty and low income. Nevertheless, according to data released by the Department for Education, blacks are the lowest performing group in the United States achieving only 2.47 in their GPA as oppose to whites which achieve 2.88.

    Are blacks - generally speaking - more lazy than whites.

    My answer: don't know.

    Albeit there was a report showing that blacks, on average, produce less reports and receive less citations for academic work than their white and Asian counterparts, I didn't find any evidence to prove blacks were "more lazy" (or less productive) than whites for the same work.

    Are blacks - generally speaking - more rude than whites?

    My answer: don't know.

    Unable to find any data on the matter.

    Are blacks - generally speaking - more violent than whites?

    My answer: yes.

    However, this is absolutely not because blacks are genetically more violent, but instead because of high single-motherhood rates and high high-school dropout rates. According to the FBI, in 2014, blacks commit nearly 38% of all violent crime as oppose to whites who commit 59.4% of it. Proportionally, blacks - generally speaking - are more prone to violent crime.

    Are blacks - generally speaking - more criminal than whites?

    My answer: yes.

    However, this is absolutely not because blacks are genetically more criminal, but instead because of high single-motherhood rates and high high-school dropout rates. According to the FBI, in 2014, blacks account for nearly 28% of all crime as oppose to whites who commit 69.4% of it. Proportionally, blacks - generally speaking - are more prone to crime.

    Conclusion

    Although there's no evidence to suggest that blacks are more lazy or more rude than white people, there is systemic evidence to show that blacks - generally speaking - are more prone to violence, criminality and perform more poorly against their white, Hispanic and Asian peers. Of course, this is absolutely not because of genetics, but rather because of the socioeconomic conditions that blacks in the US are more frequent to. Indeed, there is no evidence that any disparity exists when these factors have been righted.

    Nevertheless, generally speaking, it is not racist nor untrue to make honest generalisations when there's cogent evidence to support such a conclusion. This is where political correctness is the problem. No, not all blacks are violent or criminal or less intelligent - but generally speaking, at present they are.
    Are high single motherhood rates to do with the fact that theyre black I mean does any other "race" have such a high rate?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also, I think this thread is pointless. Seems like you just made it to stem arguments and a never ending debate. Surely there are more relevant branched aspects of this topic than TERMINOLOGY. I don't care about how particular you are about the preferred terminology used. Anyone who insults other people and their faith solely because they don't agree with them and just because they're different is just downright wrong. Please don't try and justify people's mean and nasty comments by saying 'oh islam isn't a race so im not being racist' NO BUT YOU'RE BEING MEAN, NASTY AND REPULSIVE. Stop the unnecessary maliousness. Good day!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People can you please stop saying things that are not true, I appreciate what this thread is about, but the problem is that you don't even say right things.
    Mohammad wasn't a paedophile, and that is not even allowed in Islam, and then you say that we get offended for no reason, actually I would never say anything like that about any prophet even if i disagree with that believe.
    I just want you to know that if I talk about your prophet like that you will get offended, and there is nothing wrong with that, it's just normal.
    But that doesn't mean I disagree with the first comment, actually I agree with it to certain limits and with real ideas not things that you here from people who don't know anything about Islam
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inour)
    People can you please stop saying things that are not true, I appreciate what this thread is about, but the problem is that you don't even say right things.
    Mohammad wasn't a paedophile, and that is not even allowed in Islam, and then you say that we get offended for no reason, actually I would never say anything like that about any prophet even if i disagree with that believe.
    I just want you to know that if I talk about your prophet like that you will get offended, and there is nothing wrong with that, it's just normal.
    But that doesn't mean I disagree with the first comment, actually I agree with it to certain limits and with real ideas not things that you here from people who don't know anything about Islam
    Not to start an argument here but: Aisha? He, allegedly, married her when she was 6 years old.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx;[url="tel:67746616")
    67746616[/url]]Not to start an argument here but: Aisha? He, allegedly, married her when she was 6 years old.
    It's not an argument I know
    I just want to say how do you know
    Because that wasn't even stated in the Qur'an and anything else can be made up
    And I want you to know that we follow God only
    Muhammad was only a prophet
    Of course we take him as an example but we still know he was a normal human being, so even if he was a paedophile ( I believe not ) that doesn't influence Islam or Muslims in anyway
    Because as I said before we use Qur'an as our guide and this was never said in the Quran
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 20, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Do you think you'll achieve your predicted A Level grades?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.