I suppose you think it is some cosmic coincidence?

Regarding:

“the evil shits in question want to penalise muslims and ONLY muslims for this thing you think is so terrible”

Nope. Try again. All that is requested is that the law apply to all equally.

Now you might prefer a different law. You might claim that all societies involved are predudiced, as you did. Thus you can absolve yourself of a responsibility to act and feed your self-rightousness (a twofer!).

But neither of these points is relevant.

I’m not so sure that negative stereotyping is not sufficient. “All Americans are fat” is not an example of stereotyping, it’s a factual statement that can easily be refuted. But if you said, for example (and meant it): “the Italians are lazy” – I think that would sound kinda racist.

Now, people say these kinds of things all the time, negative stereotyping is very common, and I’m sure I am guilty of it myself (“the French are so rude!”), but I think most people don’t really mean it and will realize their mistake when called on it.

Yes you are – you’re stereotyping blacks as subhuman.

“But one can also stereotype without being racist : if I say ‘all Americans are fat’ I am stereotyping Americans but I am not being racist : stereotyping is not sufficient.”

The only reason that isn’t racist is because ‘American’ isn’t a race. If you said “all blacks are fat”, that would indeed be both stereotyping and racist…

1) the evil shits in question want to penalise muslims and ONLY muslims for this thing you think is so terrible
2) they have the power to do this
3) when they do it, hundreds of thousands of people die.

if you can’t distinguish between this type of evil shit assigning themselves the right to “penalise” people (and being supported in that by their oh-so-pure citizens, such as yourself) and the very different actions they take towards people of a different race who do the same things, then you are being disingenuous and silly.

On top of which, you still haven’t explained why (as Abb1 again asks) you are presenting a general case about everyone who say, oppresses women (that touchstone of American values! Just ask the people at the Lingerie Bowl…), when you keep appending it to the word “muslim”. You specifically want this issue to focus on MUSLIMS who oppress women (or kill apostates, or whatever) when we know other groups do this too. There is footage available of Jewish men throwing chairs at woman at the wailing wall. Is that sufficient evidence for me to bomb Israel? Why do you have to append a general problem to a specific group?

And, Martin Amis’s article wasn’t exactly a general tract about women’s rights was it?

And, your final argument seems to be very much along the lines of “see, it’s true that they’re savages! If it’s true I can’t possibly be racist!” You do know the company you’re keeping with that don’t you? Or are you just blissfully ignorant of the history of racist politics?

But one can also stereotype without being racist : if I say ‘all Americans are fat’ I am stereotyping Americans but I am not being racist : stereotyping is not sufficient.

If that is the case ( and I offered some reason to accept this ) then that is all I need to show that islamophobia of the sort I am talking about is not racist. That is the issue.

When you say “penalizing Muslims who discriminate against women” – do you mean ‘penalizing those Muslims who discriminate’ or ‘penalizing all the Muslims because they discriminate’? If it’s the former, why not simply penalize those who discriminate, Muslim or not? If it’s the latter, I only need to produce one Muslim who doesn’t discriminate (or anyway doesn’t discriminate more than your average Christian).

Not to mention the Muslim women; are they too guilty of discriminating against women? Do they need to be penalized?

How about ‘penalizing Jews who (say) impoverish Germans’? Would it make sense if there were indeed some Jewish bankers (among other bankers) foreclosing on homes of some Germans and refusing to cut them any slack?

Also you haven’t answered Abb1s point. You are still talking about a group of people (“persons who discriminate against women”) who are hopelessly disparate until you apply some other better qualifying information for the “penalty”. Your strong implication is that this additional information is somehow connected to their entering a temple (a mosque, specifically). Perhaps you could qualify how you aim to identify these groups for a coherent “penalty”?

You’re really just dog-whistling. When you say “persons who discriminate against women” what you are really saying is “look at how those savages treat their women”. In case you hadn’t noticed, this is generally behaviour associated with racism. This might be the reason that Amis is copping some flak, and is the point of Abb1’s question to you.

1) Persons who attend holy temples ( or do not eat pork , or have crooked noses , or accumulate money etc. ) are at fault and such behaviour should be penalized. To the extent that Jews attend holy temples their behaviour should be penalized.

2) Persons who discriminate against women ( or advocate killing apostates and homosexuals etc ) are at fault and such behaviour should be penalized and to the extent that Muslims discriminate against women, their behaviour should be penalized.

The point I was making was that racism is not adequately characterised as stereotyping ( stereotyping is at best a necessary condition and even that may not be true , my hunch is that stereotyping is a red herring in this debate ) but rather that it involves discrimination which is not morally justified and that is why it is objectionable : either a false premise or irrelevant moral principle is doing all the lifting( attending a place of worship is like race or species membership in that they are all morally irrelevant and will not provide support for the conclusion the racist wants ). This is precisely what has gone wrong with the first argument.
The second argument on the other hand does support the conclusion and hence penalizing Muslims who discriminate against women is morally justified. And here is the move that is important : from that it follows that expressing such a view cannot be racist.

If you think it’s possible to make “a sound argument with true and morally relevant premises” by using some vague and secondary criteria to identify a large group of mostly unconnected individuals, generalizing wildly about this imaginary group, and then declaring every one of these individuals an enemy of civilization – then that’s your problem right there.

Speeding steel chariots kill, isolate, and tie to credit lines

Hollow, meaningless, cruel,

eco-destructive air-conditioners, jet travel, 100kW chariots
nb CentralPlannedEconomies were worse on the ecology
but note oxen in post oil Cuba

LWD seem likes a success, but it’s hollow at the centre, cold, unsatisfying

FI is historically backward: on women’s rights, individual freedoms in general,
lacking science, (?) tolerance (? is this true?) and (military strength ??)

FI succeeds by default, merely because LWD is hollow at the centre.

A reversion to ‘family values’ ‘xtianity’ no abortions, mandatory prison time for droogs etc
wont save us.
I suspect that LWD cannot be reformed by a ‘conservative’ return. We must forge on, to some kind of vulgar vernacular society that satisfies,
which will cause medieval remnants like FI to wither.

“hiss tuff”, so beautiful!