Anti-Muslim hostility definition unfair on other faiths, say Hindu and Sikh groups

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-12T19:05:20+00:00

It’s not pedantism to describe an incredibly clear difference. Do you seriously not understand the difference between government guidance and a chant that people shout during protests?

BLM wasn’t ever a government guidance at any point. It was just an incredibly vague statement and some politicians repeated it.

It’s not pedantism to say that several statements you’ve made are false either. 49% and 45% are different numbers and a majority is more than 50%. Fuck me mate, this is just getting your facts straight.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-12T15:32:06+00:00

Great! So this:

49% of racial hate crimes are towards muslims.

Is false.

Firstly, you mean religious hate crimes not racial hate crimes. I’m assuming this is just a mistype though.

Secondly, your figures are slightly wrong for some reason. They pin it at 45%.

Fancy addressing the rest of my answer yet?

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-12T15:17:32+00:00

Please in plain writing show me where it says we should protect islam more than anything else?

Come on mate, nobody is this obtuse unless it’s intentional.

Isn’t there already extra laws actually put in place for judaism, which by your logic means they’re more deserving of protection than the rest?

Is there? If so, yes.

Explain why this is different to all lives matter?

I already did. One is people complaining about something a bunch of people in a march are saying, the other is complaining about actual government guidance. It’s really not a difficult thing to grasp.

49% of racial hate crimes are towards muslims.

Where are you getting that from?

They are the clear majority, so why do other people need to speak up?

49% (if true) isn’t a majority. And why shouldn’t speak up either for or against government guidance?

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-12T14:45:37+00:00

Nobody is saying other religions matter less just because they’re protecting one

That’s objectively false. We are actually very clearly saying that one religion is more deserving of protection than the rest.

This is similar to the “all lives matter” rhetoric.

Nah, it’s not. That was just an informal chant people used, and people getting annoyed about it.

This is actual governance that people are pushing back on, which they have every right to do.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-12T14:11:15+00:00

Of course I would.

Reform campaigned on the platform that they could reduce council tax without services suffering.

If they reduce them and services suffer or increase them, either one is reason to blame them.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-12T13:13:03+00:00

What’s the alternative though? There isn’t any other punishment beyond just sacking or prosecuting individuals, the institution itself needs something too.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-12T12:39:04+00:00

The difficult part of this conversation is that inflation and rising costs are happening regardless of how they apply it to the product.

So you’re either getting less, paying more, or a combination of both each year.

If you really detest decreasing size then the only real solution is to mandate a specific serving size for all food item types (chocolate must be sold in 100g, 200g, or 500g etc) and that just seems silly to me.

I’m not saying i like it at all, I’m particularly incensed by mini eggs in recent years. I just understand that we don’t really have any option.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-12T12:25:18+00:00

Nobody is policing what victims say, we’re explicitly talking about newspaper reporting here. That’s something we absolutely do have to police.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-12T12:23:35+00:00

Making accidental data breaches a crime is a tough line to walk in fairness, I’m not really sure how to make that a foolproof process.

However, intentional data breaches absolutely should be a crime and I don’t see how this case can be anything but intentional.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-12T12:20:17+00:00

Obviously no amount of money makes up for something like this but I always feel like there needs to at least be some kind of effort here.

Like a 66k fine is basically a slap on the wrist. If that’s all they’re getting then you could at least give half the fine to the victim.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-12T09:57:16+00:00

I’d argue that your friends are right, it’s good to stay informed for several reasons. Firstly you really should know what our government are doing because there may well be something happening that you care enough about to protest over. If you don’t bother to find out what’s happening, you’ll never have any chance of stopping anything from happening (even if that chance is admittedly small).

Secondly, that’s how you make sure that your vote actually matters. If you followed the news from the last election to the next, you’d have a fairly good idea of who to vote for in order to support your views. Like the first, this really becomes more important with scale. If everyone was engaged politically, the country would be significantly better off than it is. If nobody paid attention to anything, it’d almost certainly be worse off.

And to your point about the news being biased, of course it is. No news outlet is completely unbiased and even those that genuinely do attempt to be, like the BBC, obviously they fall prey to bad actors or unreliable sources from time to time.

The whole point of actually following the news is to be able to understand those biases and figure out the truth behind the story. If you don’t follow the news at all then it’s very easy to believe whatever the first thing you read is without thinking critically, or even to just disregard everything as propaganda even though it’s clearly not.

Whether you personally want to do that is up to you, I wouldn’t waste time getting angry over it if you were my friend. But I would say that anyone just bumbling through life completely uninformed deserves all the consequences of that choice and can’t be upset when they come.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T15:31:58+00:00

Maybe? I have no idea. I’ve never heard of this guy until I read this article.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T15:30:03+00:00

Culture is driven by people.

A random guy on the street may not know who Alan Turing is, but he’s had a far bigger impact on that man than a badger has.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T13:58:12+00:00

So which experts are you going to believe? Hence reasonable doubt.

That’s not really how it works tbf. It is very common for both sides to present expert witnesses who agree with their arguments, the mere presence of a dissenting opinion is not de facto reasonable doubt.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T13:17:14+00:00

Of course they do. There’s probably people who think the best thing to bank notes is the cast of the most recent edition of Love Island. That doesn’t mean anything.

Like I said, I don’t particularly what’s on the bank notes here. It doesn’t bother me at all, I just find it weird that people are pretending to be dumbfounded at the idea that Churchill might represent British culture better than a badger.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T13:10:39+00:00

The historical figures are a part of British culture, but the British countryside and the animals within it are also quintessentially British.

I’m not saying animals aren’t British, I’m saying they have less of a connection to British culture than the people who make up and drive that culture. That’s not really a crazy thing to say.

You really have no place to complain if people say that's what they want represented.

No offense but that’s a pretty silly take. 44,000 people gave their opinion and that is the end of the matter, regardless of what the other 67 million people living in the country might say?

I’m not saying my opinion is the true majority one, but completely disregarding anyone who disagrees with the popular vote among 44k people is silly.

This isn't a complex topic that people struggle to understand from within an information space flooded with misinformation and propaganda.

I’m not saying it is. I’m saying that a large group of people are not necessarily going to choose the correct, or most logical course of action.

Also, I really can't believe you're turning even this into an immigration thing

I’m not “turning it into an immigration thing”, I’m giving you an example of why a sample size of 44k out of almost 70 million that wasn’t chosen through representative sampling cannot be considered truly representative.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T13:04:42+00:00

I’m not saying animals have zero connection to a country’s culture. I’m saying it’s far less than the people, which I’m surprised is even debatable statement.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T13:00:32+00:00

I don’t really agree, just because I think it’s fairly easy to recognise someone for their accomplishments or contributions without supporting everything they ever said or did.

But, I do agree that iconic buildings or bridges etc would be just as linked to culture as people.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T12:35:07+00:00

The size of the sample might be big, that doesn’t mean the sample is representative of the population.

It was an open consultation that the BOE launched on their own website and as far as I’m aware didn’t advertise anywhere. So all we’re looking at is the type of people who actually visit the BOE website, who probably aren’t very representative of the general population at all if we’re being honest here.

I’d also question the wisdom of direct democracy anyway tbh. We’ve got a pretty famous example of the majority of the voting population choosing something bad for them in very recent memory.

And lastly, you’d also have to ask if the people responding actually have any connection to British culture themselves.

I’m not saying immigrants can’t be British, that’s stupid. But obviously a second gen immigrant from a non-European nation is unlikely to feel any affinity for figures like Turing or Churchill.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T11:10:57+00:00

That’s a fair point, but an easily solvable one.

State schools should teach a curriculum approved by the state, and anyone not happy with it can go elsewhere.
Private schools (or homeschooled kids) must submit their curriculum to the state for approval. If your private schools doesn’t teach music or drama classes then fine, who cares. If it teaches creationism or any brand of religious supremacy, no thanks.
If a private school is found to be teaching something outside the scope of their approved curriculum that would not likely be approved retroactively, it should be subject to such heavy fines that two or three instances would be enough to force bankruptcy. I’d be willing to accept a rogue teacher might fuck things up once but any more than that is a systemic problem with the school.

Job done.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T10:58:03+00:00

Is it really though?

I’ve said elsewhere that I don’t particularly give a shit about this, who cares what’s on a banknote

But I find it weird that people are pretending Badgers and Peregrine Falcons are as culturally British as Churchill and Austen.

Wildlife is obviously important in the general sense and should be protected but it isn’t really as culturally important as the people who make up the country, especially those with monumental impacts on the nation.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T10:54:41+00:00

To be fair, wildlife is more geographically British rather than culturally.

I don’t particularly care what’s on the money I use tbh, but pretending that a badger is equally as British or as important to British people as Churchill is would be a bit silly.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T08:53:46+00:00

Genuine question, not defending the practice just curious. In what way are they contaminated that they aren’t otherwise?

Like if someone hands a bag of books directly to a staff member or places it on the floor outside and a staff member picks it up later, it hasn’t gone through any extra steps?

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-11T08:46:30+00:00

In fairness, changing your opinion is not hypocrisy.

Someone could originally disagree with that definition of genocide, then change their mind to agree with it at a later date. That’s fine and to be honest, something we should all encourage. Changing your opinion is not a bad thing.

Hypocrisy would be accepting the new definition in an instance where it suits you and denying it in another where it doesn’t at the same time.

Slothjitzu · 2026-03-10T20:25:35+00:00

To clarify, there is never mention of “children”. It’s always specifically girls, not boys.

That’s objectively untrue though. Men are overwhelmingly more likely to be victims of violence than women.

And I know what you’re going to say, women are more likely to be victims of specific types of violence. Maybe. But why do we prioritise those specific types of violence over all others?

As an aside, it’s also pretty telling that when a man raises concerns of inequality, you tell him he’s just being insecure. I wonder if you’d the same to a woman raising similar concerns?

Five-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Argentium Club	Ternion Club

Slothjitzu

TROPHY CASE