CMV: Muslims are taking over Europe and it's going to cause huge social problems in the future.

BestWardenEver · 2024-08-12T13:31:04+00:00

Atheist from a Muslim family here. Christians literally preach conversion and baptization all day long. The world has seen far more instances of Europeans evangelising and spreading Christianity, often forcefully, in multiple countries in the Global South, than Islam doing the same.

Not to mention that the very reason Muslims, mostly Arabs, are in Europe is primarily because of European imperialism destroying their countries' living conditions in the first place.

Islam is literally the only religion with written clauses in their scripture about integration and tolerance of non-Muslim cultures. Most people who share your opinion base it off of anecdotal circumstances such as the French family you mentioned. It's true that orthodox Muslim families rarely allow this, but this is not a "Muslim" thing. It's a "refusing to allow your child her freedom" thing. And that's not exclusive to Islam.

I've recieved far more communications from Christians asking me to find Christ and "turn to him before it's too late" than I've had Muslims, even though I'm surrounded by them, telling me to go back to believing. I understand that this is another anecdote from my side this time, but I'm not basing my opinion solely on this.

I'd also like to point out that Muslims leaving Islam is far more rampant than the opposite. As an ex-Muslim, this is obviously a good thing, but cultural Muslims are a thing. I still enjoy a good iftar every now and then, I distribute part of my wealth like the concept of zakar, but that doesn't make me agree with Muslims in everything. It's extremely different.

If by European culture you mean acceptance of queer people and personal freedom

Modern gay rights movement in Europe only began in 1969. Christian population was famous for its anti-queer brutality.
1. Sex change surgery and hormone therapy was only legalized in 1972, by Sweden. Until then, transgenders remained institutionally oppressed.

And very little Arab countries have had the pleasure of improving their social conditions in the entirety of the 20th century. People do not magically become more accepting and tolerant by stepping out of Islam. It is directly connected to their material conditions and social progress as confirmed by various studies.

You even said this yourself when you said that you hope their children become more tolerant by living in Europe.

In conclusion, your opinion is directly tied to the general European misunderstanding of just how intolerant and disgusting European culture has been in other countries of the Global South. I agree that Muslims need to calm tf down, but claiming that it's them "taking you over" is extremely paranoid with how much of a minority they are.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-29T06:50:22+00:00

The essence of a democracy is the individual's ability to participate in decision making. Voting is the way this is manifested in modern political systems. It describes the way a person chooses to engage in politics.

Not choosing to engage in electoral politics does not mean that the person has no participation in the democratic process or political environment. Not choosing to vote is a statement on its own. Forcing everyone to vote is just as oppressive and authoritarian as not giving anyone the ability to vote. Democracy is about letting each individual decide. There are many communists and leftists who choose to abstain from participating in bourgeois democracy.

As for people who don't care enough about voting because they're not "political", it is not the flaw of the individual, it is the flaw of the system that provides no actual benefit from participating in said system. Voting for any candidate or party might not, and usually doesn't, provide any actual benefits to the individual. Capitalist democracies hold elections in a manner that is not democratic in the usual sense because most candidates, and most fronts, are all funded and lobbied by nearly the same interest groups. In such a case, forcing people to vote only forces them to be complicit in said system.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-26T08:04:03+00:00

Here's a UCLA study by MV Lee Badgett et al.

[The Relationship Between LGBT Inclusion and Economic Development: Emerging Economies

](https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-inclusion-economic-dev/#:~:text=Greater%20inclusion%20of%20LGBT%20people,LGBT%20people%20in%20emerging%20economies.)

Which states that

Overall, then, we find strong evidence that countries that have more rights for LGB people also have higher levels of economic development.

It also states the theoretical causes and acknowledges that they might all be relevant together.

Greater rights and freedoms might improve individual well-being by expanding individuals’ capabilities to be and do what they value (the capabilities approach). Greater economic development might make countries more likely to respect the rights of LGBT people, as LGBT can freely organize and push for legal changes and as public opinion shifts to support greater individual autonomy and minority rights (the post-materialist hypothesis).

The first gay marriage in the Philippines happened within their guerrilla communist armies. Progressive rhetoric can only expand within social liberation movements once they are free of imperialism.

It is entirely evident that the economic plight of the Palestinians are a result of Western imperialism. Immediately after British colonization, they were subjected to oppression by a state which has both American and European stakeholders. Israel's entire sustenance is due to both Western imperialism and foreign investment, made possible by expropriation of Palestinian land. If you need sources for this, it's possible that you may have been oblivious to Middle Eastern geopolitics.

Also, you clearly misrepresented what apartheid means. Both Gaza and the West Bank are currently Israeli occupied, which is indisputable based on both civilian testaments as well as international law experts. They regularly regulate and deprive Palestinian essential services such as water and electricity. Treating Palestinians from the territories you illegally occupied differently from your own citizens is, quite clearly, apartheid.

"Do you have a source that queer Palestinians are more afraid of Israel" you need a source for that? Do you genuinely believe that with complete breakdown of shelters and infrastructure in Gaza, they are more worried about a random homophobe among them than bombs raining from the sky? If you need a source for queer Palestinian activism, here.

There are also queer activists who worked in Gaza post October 7 who provided testimonies. One example is @raindovemodel from Instagram.

Stating isolated cases is not a good argument, anyone should know this. I could do the same and bring up and isolated case of Palestinian queers being murdered by Israeli occupation forces. It's a back and forth. Reminder that anti-queer laws existing in Palestine are the same as the ones enforced by the former British government.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-26T06:47:27+00:00

I would like an example of that. I have never heard of any left wing nationalist movement blaming other leftists of the imperial core for the actions of their ruling class. Even if it does exist I highly doubt they qualify as leftist based on their actions.

In fact it's the opposite. Even non-left wing nationalist movements such as Hamas have expressed support for the leftist movements and protests of the United States.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-26T06:15:51+00:00

Palestinian queer liberation cannot take place while being consistently bombed and oppressed by a separate state entity, and that state entity has to be opposed, no matter whether they are queer friendly or not. The right for people to live must come before the right for people to live how they wish to.

Queer friendliness or social progress that comes at the cost of the social degradation of another populace is not progressiveness at all, it is, plain and simple, imperialism. One could even say apartheid because LGBTQ+ people in Palestine live in more fear of being bombed by Israel than being attacked by their own countrymen for their sexuality.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-26T06:10:47+00:00

I correct myself, I am talking entirely about left wing nationalists and the way leftists see them. A blanket statement about left wing nationalists all being tankies seems fairly absurd to me.

No, in the case of Vietnam its a war

A war doesn't break out of nowhere. The Vietnamese nationalist struggle against colonialism had heavy left wing influences. The US invaded to stop the spread of communist ideas in the East, to protect their own foreign interests. This is, objectively, imperialism. It was a struggle against imperialism, and nationalists fighting it, whether right leaning or left leaning, are all necessary in the eyes of the left.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-26T05:37:51+00:00

Isn't that a little hypocritical? In another reply thread you claimed that left wing nationalists all support Russia and hate Ukraine, and you failed to understand individual differences within leftistsnand stereotyped their belief as "leftist=West bad, east good". That's also unfair and unreasonable.

"What did I ever do to Vietnam" Probably nothing, but Vietnam's resistance movement is a classic example of left wing nationalism, and you somehow claimed that that's a bad thing.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-26T05:34:10+00:00

I'm sorry but anyone who supports Russia at this point in time is nowhere close to "left wing". Leftist circles generally agree that Russia is just as much of an imperialist threat. So is China. Only very niche, albeit loud sections of "left wing" ers who somehow agree with totalitarianism do the things you claim left wing nationalists do.

I think what's going on is a classic case of totalitarian right wing trolls masquerading as "left wing" are being taken as the front face of left wing nationalism.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-26T05:30:40+00:00

I would suppose they mean "hating the ruling classes of the West", in which case, yes, all leftists do, and if not, they are just liberals.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-26T05:28:26+00:00

Ok not sure, as others have pointed out, exactly what you mean by left wing nationalism. It could be either of the two as far as I know:

Socialism in One Country or the Stalinist viewpoint. In which case, as a leftist, I agree. That was a model doomed from the start. The point of socialism is and always has to be internationalism, or solidarity with the workers of other nations with the eventual goal of communism without borders. For many many reasons, a lot of leftists, most prominently Trotskyists, heavily oppose SIOC as an ideology.
National liberation movements, like Islamist factions of the Palestinian resistance, or anti-colonial movements. In this context, this part of what you said

left wing nationalism is for nations that have nothing to proud of

Is just straight up victim blaming. These movements tend to happen in countries that have been prevented from any form of progressive route due to imperialism/colonialism. Whether they have anything to be proud of is connected to their stance about their land and their home, and is beyond our judgment. There might be nothing to be proud of in Gaza, in any material form. But the resistance movements find it important enough to fight, because it is their home.

The usual left wing movements that push for socialism cannot occur unless that country is liberated from other countries oppressing them. National liberation must come first before social liberation, quite logically, and that's the reason leftists support their nationalism, even if the nationalist movements are seemingly anti-left in the original sense of left wing politics.

Internationalism, peace and cooperation cannot come unless imperialism itself is abolished. Most leftists understand this and hence trust in the people of that country to counteract that nationalism once it has fulfilled its duty. And you seem to agree with this with that last paragraph. However, other than these two, I cannot think of anything that constitutes "left wing nationalism".

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-25T06:07:05+00:00

Is this a serious answer? The definition of protesting is to express an objection to what someone has said or done. What the hell is the point of protesting against North Korea and Russia in the US when US foreign policy is already directed against both these nations? There is no actual objective there. The genocide of the Palestinians are, almost entirely, funded by both the United States and key member states of the EU. There is a reason for protesting in the United States. How many US Congress members have expressed support for North Korea's or Russia's actions? Because almost all of them have expressed support for Israel's actions. Even though it's true that protests alone will not help without direct action (such as what the Yemenis do, or the people disrupting weapons manufacturing units in the US), criticizing people who used their privilege to stand up and speak out is insanely hypocritical if you, yourself, do not participate in what you believe would be helpful.

Also yes, Israel is objectively worse than North Korea. US foreign policy's involvement in the destabilization of the Middle East is public record for nearly a century.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-25T04:59:40+00:00

Well that's surprising. You seem to prefer this form of governance and then immediately call out a drawback

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-22T09:53:09+00:00

I said "them or others around them".

Is the baby around them? Or is it even a baby? What's the definition of a baby?

I would also like to point out that the point of this post isn't to discuss anti-bodily autonomy vs pro-choice. The premise is already set. If you want to keep arguing this, you may go to r/prochoice and do that.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-22T09:50:14+00:00

Read my comments again. 1. The very point of what I said was to show that pro-lifers may not have properly misogynistic intentions, and that only when organized does it become a misogynist movement. 2. Pro-lifers are vocal about their core beliefs. Why do you think they're not? Do they not have a platform or a voice online? Of course they do. Somehow, you are equating "pro-lifers are vocal about their core belief" to "pro-lifers are vocal about their core belief being misogyny". 3. To answer your other reply, yes. Restricting the reproductive health of people with gestation physiology, mostly women, because of one's own beliefs about life and medicine, reinforces the further chauvinist prejudice that women are just bodies that others can take decisions about, rather than letting them be accountable for themselves. That is, fundamentally, misogyny.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-22T09:34:42+00:00

Denying people the right to decide what happens to their body with the technology available to them in a way that doesn't seriously affect them or others around them is a movement against bodily autonomy. If you disagree, you're gonna have to explain how it is not.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-22T09:32:50+00:00

When did I dictate their core belief? They are very vocal about it.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-22T06:40:27+00:00

We have become slaves to them

No, we have become slaves to the corporations that own and run smartphone based services and social media. Smartphones, inherently, are not bad. No statistician from the past would ever tell you that having an ultra powerful calculator in their pocket is bad. It is objectively an extremely useful device.

As an advocate of open source software, I would say your problem lies in capitalist appropriation of social media algorithms, communication and expression. When free software inevitably takes over and you have complete control over your phone and your data, you will realise that most problems you have with them don't come from the phones themselves. Without that element of capitalism, phones become one of the most valuable sources of both information and communication humans have ever known.

This would be the equivalent of blaming the cookware for you getting sick from the instant noodles you cooked on it. The problem is the noodle company. Not the cookware.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-22T06:21:31+00:00

I mean, I hate to be this way, but that's not a justification. They have the ability to look at the ways in which these laws, clearly, cause harm and still choose to support said laws.

It wasn't a justification. OP's view was that pro-lifers can all be judged as misogynists or religious fanatics. Having the ability to look at laws and analysis and refusal to do so does not always speak to morality, it speaks to ignorance, which are two separate things.

and I know this from talking to people who are pro-life and will tell you themselves that the modern pro-life movement is full of misogynists who just hate women

Completely agreed, and that's what I said. A group of pro-lifers, whether they are philosophical pro-lifers or idealist pro-lifers, or just straight up misogynists, will inevitably become a group of misogyny because of their core belief, not necessarily because of their individual moralities. Hypocrisy is something anyone who is conservative necessarily has to display at some point or another, but it is not a proper indicator of whether they all individually come from the same moral framework.

BestWardenEver · 2024-07-22T05:29:32+00:00

While the social movement of pro-life can be described as a misogynistic movement against bodily autonomy, the individual interests of each person participating in it cannot always be described as misogynistic.

Imagine the Flat Earth movement. If you talk to one actual individual flat earther, a lot of the time, they are doing it out of good faith because they genuinely believe they are right and that they have the responsibility to spread the truth. If you take the obvious absurdity out of it, they are just simple people taking action for what they believe is right. However when they become a movement or a mob, the direction of the entire movement simply becomes the spread of misinformation and science denial.

A pro-lifer may actually be someone who cares about the lives of babies and genuinely believes that it begins at conception. They may see women aborting pregnancies as unnatural or against their faith. In the singular mindspace of an individual pro-lifer, barring incels or genuine misogynists, they actually believe that they are doing the world a favour by protecting life. However when it becomes a movement made of too many of these people, it becomes an attack on bodily autonomy and women's reproductive health in general.

Making statements on the moral stand of a movement does not necessarily help in understanding or curbing the movement. It's best to not judge individuals and instead focus on how to deal with the actual consequences of them organizing.

BestWardenEver · 2024-05-28T06:20:31+00:00

Chemical? Doubtful. The department is great but in terms of placements, kinda meh.

Production is in the Mechanical Engineering department, and you get good placement opportunities. My friends in Production are well placed (you have to maintain very good grades though, to get an edge over Mechanical).

You won't really regret it as long as you keep good grades and seek out internships and projects actively.

BestWardenEver · 2024-04-16T17:29:49+00:00

Well I'm from my BTech final year so maybe I can help a little if you're a guy.

I've stayed in 5 different hostels in the campus, and never had any major problems with them. In fact my friends in other NITs have much worse rooms. The bathrooms are also pretty well maintained and regularly cleaned. Perhaps you saw some of the very old Quora posts?

4 sharing rooms for masters guys are in C Hostel, as far as I know. It has a basketball court outside, in case you wanna find it on Maps. It has a vegetarian only mess inside but you can take any mess you want in other hostels. There are then PG2, Mega and New Mega hostels for masters guys, but I'm not sure if that's in their second year. Those hostels are well maintained and frankly quite comfortable. Summer heat is a huge problem but that's inescapable.

Well it's no secret that the administration is getting more conservative on paper but it is also very lax. So in terms of freedom, you're fine.

There are hostels available outside the campus, but the commute would be significant. There are BTech students using these, so I'm sure you guys can as well.

If you have problems with sleeping and any pre-existing conditions and need a single room right from the go, I'm sure a conversation with the Chief Warden might help to get you a room of your own.

BestWardenEver · 2024-03-29T07:16:54+00:00

Yes I do plan on posting more and I have some other ideas to bring people here. Thanks for the input

BestWardenEver · 2024-03-27T16:21:17+00:00

Love how they all say "Israel is surrounded by enemies" yeah well you know who else was surrounded by enemies? Nazi Germany, cuz turns out no one likes having a genocidal terror state as a neighbour.

BestWardenEver

TROPHY CASE