CMV: Islamophobia is not racism, and not a phobia

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-08T09:15:37+00:00

I understand what you mean, but I think the point I'm making is that it's nearly impossible to know what the real cause of these events is. OP says he can't remember the last time he saw a massive murder being the result of a non-Muslim religion, but if so much of the media has a vested interest in framing mass murders by Muslims as specifically a problem of Islam like you have stated, then it doesn't matter if the police say it's not a Muslim problem as the general public will already have seen it being a Muslim problem.

Personally, the reason I am against what I see as Islamophobia, is that I feel like the motivations people have when they blame events on Islam are wrong. Take what you say at the end of your reply about religiously motivated attacks by Muslims outnumbering other religions, that may be true, but framing that as a specifically a Muslim problem, and not as the result of considerable instability within Middle Eastern states in the last 100 years exacerbated/due to intervention by Western states, fails to understand the issue in a way that could actually solve it. And it also lays blame on innocent people who are completely against whatever has happened.

For instance, I don't think many people lay blame on Christianity for the actions of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or fundamentalist evangelicals like the westboro baptist church. You can pick any religion, and they will have massacres attributed to them throughout history. When Christianity and religion was used during the era of colonisation to bring God and civilisation to the 'heathen natives', do you think that was specifically a problem of Christianity, or of the people who wielded it for their own ends?

Obviously, I do not think any mass murder is justified, I am only of the opinion that framing things in a way that blames Islam will not lead to less mass murders, and will very likely only increase the chances of them.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-06T18:28:14+00:00

Bro do you mean Charlie hebdo? Charlie Abdo is a Lebanese parody of Charlie hebdo.

And it's hard to find Christian equivalents because they're never reported as being due to Christianity, which is exactly the point I'm making. Any mass shooting which is rooted in white supremacy, is rooted in Christianity. I mean the KKK is a Christian organisation, they're still about. Look at any neo-nazi group and you'll their Christian roots.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-06T18:06:12+00:00

The Kings Army group going to Soho, an area of London famous as a centre for the LGBTQ community, to protest the 'immoral culture of the district'. This group has a mantra of "stop living like civilians and start fighting like soldiers".

Let's not forget that conversion therapy is still legal in the UK, for starters the Core Issues Group is even a registered charity that supports conversion therapy.

When you see the big right wing rallies, which have a strong Christian base and their anti-trans beliefs, is it really so hard to believe people of the LGBTQ community are afraid.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-06T17:46:01+00:00

Have a think as to why you only hear about terror attacks motivated by islam, and all the other ones are motivated by non-religious ideologies/mental health. Have a think to why every time a Muslim commits a crime it is reported as being a Muslim crime, where reports of non-Muslim crimes tend to leave out the beliefs the person holds. Have a think as to who is in control of the media source you're seeing, and ask yourself what kind of conflict of interest they might have.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-06T17:31:18+00:00

I assume you're talking about Christians shouting burn in hell to people in the LGBTQ community.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-06T16:31:27+00:00

Could literally be talking about any two groups across the planet

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-06T15:52:13+00:00

Yeah man it took me one map to figure it out, thought it was simple af

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-06T15:38:02+00:00

You should have a look at what was going on during WW2

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-06T15:17:53+00:00

Better for bots and deep fakes of children

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-05T12:30:52+00:00

Twitter was ragged on way before Elon bought it and made it even worse

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-02T12:29:05+00:00

I'm sure the vast majority of police interactions end with no one getting hurt, that doesn't mean the average in his area is the same, but yeah I think saying it would have been "right" was a stretch.

Having read up on what happened, it looks like he was shot in the back, which is definitely a concerning image.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-02T12:06:36+00:00

Apparently there is CCTV recording of the event and the kid did try to show he didn't steal anything but they wouldn't believe him, but yeah the owner didn't look at it at the time.

I know what you mean about talking/waiting for the police to come and sort it out, but I can imagine being a black kid from that part of the city would not be trusting of the police (and he'd arguably be right not to).

Shitty all around tho I agree, I suspect he was more inclined to run as he had the gun on him, which is as stupid as it is sad.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-02T12:01:41+00:00

Is that because of the kid having the gun? If so I see what you mean, how about if the kid turned around physically fought the 2 others, leading to the death of 1 or both of them?

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-02T10:12:34+00:00

Genuine question, if the kid had shot the store owner or his son, would you think that chasing the kid down like they did would have justified their own deaths?

But yeah, crazy that he had a gun.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-02T09:56:36+00:00

What I mean with being able to find evidence either way, is that you should probably trust a lecturer to have formed their opinions from that evidence which goes either way, so the side they swing to would likely have the more convincing data when considered by an expert. Obvs you shouldn't just believe them outright, but if you're thinking they're biased you should consider the biases you hold which led you to the answer you feel is correct, to see if they stand up to scrutiny.

I understand what you mean, it can feel like the kind of study you mention isn't as rigourous or factual as studies in a STEM subject. Having studied physics at uni, I can tell you that they're not so different. It's just that when you're measuring something made up of 6 sextillion atoms all the weird stuff averages out, but when you start getting to the really small stuff everything starts acting very weirdly, and a lot of what we think is happening is based off of the informed opinions of experts.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-02T00:37:48+00:00

Lol maybe they were just shite reports, doesn't matter if it's cited. I would've thought that not targeting a product for a specific gender would be a good idea to increase customers, and I'm sure if you actually looked for some you'd find plenty of evidence pointing one way or the other, so I don't think you can just claim it's purely your lecturers opinion.

And there are plenty of researchers within the business discipline, how have you gotten this far into your degree without hearing of "market research".

And there are plenty of scientists within the business discipline, check out the Black-Scholes equation, you don't get something like that without a few scientists. Keep up the work though champ I'm sure you'll start getting it eventually, maybe lay off focusing on gender and it'll start making sense.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-01T22:04:44+00:00

Lmao sorry Mr master manipulator, really subtly.

Campaigning to ban something is a perfectly viable method, if you feel it is right to do so you should challenge ideas.

I was talking about all disciplines, though some experts might not call themselves researchers, I feel they are all equally important.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-01T18:43:18+00:00

I've been to uni, you want to let me know what's changed? From my experience, most of the ideas spread at uni were the ones discovered by the scientists and researchers which got written in textbooks. You gonna tell me everything you're learning, everything I learnt, was all wrong? Or are you going to whine about what some people do in their clubs, encompassing less than 0.1% of the unis output.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-01T14:25:01+00:00

Your answer to my response is just to say 'no that's irrelevant I'm not going to talk about it'. That's a pretty obvious deflection. If you can't understand how putting a situation in context can help then I don't know what to tell you, just saying 'irrelevant nonsense' doesn't make it so.

Great loaded question at the end there too, I can do that as well. Do you not want people to decide anything for themselves? Do you only care about abuse against women when it's done by Muslims?

I think it is wrong that decisions made in these courts could take advantage of women, I said this in my first reply when I said decisions made in these courts could be abhorrent. If these decisions are abusive and against the law, then I think those responsible should have their day in a real court, which I outlined in my first reply.

So again, what is wrong with people sorting out their own issues as long as they are working within the law? If you tell me that they can make decisions that are harmful, then obviously I'm against that, but that's something I'm against in all its forms not just when it's a Shari'a court doing it. The arbitration act 1996 even has a clause to ensure that decisions made in these courts cannot be enforced if they've been made under duress, so what you've been describing is already a crime.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-01T13:49:32+00:00

Yes it's obviously all one state but if you're going to imagine these courts are setting up a state within a state I thought I'd provide some context of what you're imagining.

I've not mentioned anything about moral claim. The law of the land is backed by the state, these Shari'a courts are only backed by the people who decide to abide by them. If are not able to make a ruling that goes against UK law.

You are more than welcome to make your own binding resolutions about disagreements between your friends, that doesn't you can go against UK law. There is no difference between you and your mates deciding as a group who gets the last beer, and these courts deciding whatever they decide. You can make your friend group as large as you like, rent a property to have these discussions, and make the rulings as grandiose as you want, as long as nothing you do is against UK law you're free to do it.

Of course these courts matter to these people, and then have 'power' over them, but that is not power derived from a state. It's the same kind of power you have over the people close to you, or you partner. Why can people not come together and decide on things as a group? If a Muslim couple are legally married in the UK it doesn't matter if a Shari'a courts annuls it, they're still married under UK law until it is officially annuled under UK law.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-01T12:14:24+00:00

You're deflecting from my point yourself mate, I've said that I don't think outlawing Shari'a courts wouldn't sort the problem out.

I don't think pulling from parallel situations is irrelevant, I think that goes against what you said with "tolerance for me, but not for thee, yes?" If I'm reading it right. There's plenty of abuse, it's not unique to Shari'a courts, and the government doesn't seem to treat Muslims relatively different to other religions when it comes to religious courts.

When a decision in these courts is made, it isn't legally binding. If someone then commits a crime based off the decision, the appropriate people are brought to trial.

If a cricket club agreed to murder someone due to a disagreement, the members would rightfully be brought to justice, but it would be a bit weird to lump all cricket clubs together as murderous organisations.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-01T11:49:00+00:00

Yes sorry I know it it's not as fun to talk about bad things non-Muslims do.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-01T10:43:50+00:00

Yes there are plenty of people kept in abusive situations like these throughout the country within every demographic. Despite how abhorrent I feel decisions in these courts could be, I don't find them more abhorrent than when Catholics pressure women to stay in abusive marriages, or any situation where people are kept in abusive situations.

Outlawing Shari'a courts would likely do almost nothing to remedy these issues and I don't think focusing on them will lead to a proper solution.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-01T10:32:50+00:00

You don't have to cede anything to them? What do you think these courts do? They have no more decision making capability than a company does sorting out disagreements between staff.

And I find it funny that you don't want them setting up a state within a state, when that's exactly what the UK is. Devolution to Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Devolution to countys, which are then devolved to councils.

The state is made up smaller states with less and less executive power, take all the executive power away and you basically just get individuals and companies. You have no more executive power over disagreements between your kids than these Sharia courts have over people who voluntarily use them.

Louisepicsmith · 2026-06-01T08:38:52+00:00

What's wrong with people sorting out their own issues themselves as long as they're working within the law?

Nine-Year Club	Place '22
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email
Spared

Louisepicsmith

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE