dialamah

Imagine being Muslim/Jewish/black and being pulled over by a white cop with no identifying information about his ideology. Or facing a white judge, not knowing their ideology. Are they closet white nationalist? Are they anti-Semitic or Islamophobic? Imagine being a black man pulled over by a white cop - Western society says black people are more dangerous, and white cops can kill without consequence. That could put his life in danger. The appearance of fairness and equality in certain positions of authority is imperative. Any white cop or judge who doesn't wear his ideology stamped on his forehead - you have no way of knowing just how seriously he takes his beliefs and if you are brown/black, how those beliefs will affect your freedom and life.

Fact checking sites aren't the final answer, they are a tool to be used with your own critical thinking skills, to reduce the likelihood that you will be someone's patsy, spreading false news, divisiveness, hatred and, ultimately, violence. Use a couple or more on any given topic, and you'll come out better informed even if your mind isn't changed. I get that if you prefer the kind of news that hits your emotional buttons and validates your existing biases, then fact-checking isn't in the cards for you. For people interested in information, accurate news and facts, these sites can be very useful.

I thought it might be useful to have a list of the fact-checking sites people use or like the best. There's quite a few out there, and while they don't always agree, I think they're great tools to double check one's own sources and biases. Here some I regularly use: Media Bias Fact Check - I use this one so often I bought a subscription. Rational Wiki - good for debunking stupid ideas, as it's not neutral; their goal is "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement; Documenting the full range of crank ideas; Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism; Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media." Snopes - pretty sure most people know about this one. Politifact - American politics. Factscan - Specifically for Canadian politics. I just found this one, Media Bias Fact Check gives it a "least biased" rating, so thought it was worthwhile adding it to the list. Any others?

I tried, but the only news stories I could find were about Iran hanging two or three (the stories weren't clear), a reporter challenging Iran on hanging gays and about Iran's government defending their right to set their own laws. There was a story out of Afghanistan about 200 civilians being killed over Ramadan, but these included women and children. My belief is based on stuff I've read here and there from credible sources. Some random on the internet telling me that 200 gay people were thrown from a roof somewhere by an unidentified someone (or someones) during Ramadan, but can't provide a source, then tosses in a snide comment is not a very "compelling" argument. Anyhow, Iraq apparently disapproves of throwing gays off roofs, since they've arrested a (ISIS) guy for doing so.

Life is not black and white, people behave differently for a variety of reasons. Most Muslims are not terrorists, even if some wear a tshirt saying "2030 We take over", are recent converts or life-long believers. Some Muslims are (or will be) terrorists, even if they don't wear a tshirt, are recent converts or life-long believers. Most home grown terrorists are young men who feel alienated from larger society, whether Islamic or Right-Wing. Not every young man who feels alienated will become a terrorist. All those things are true, it's not a matter of saying completely different things to excuse some people but not others.

He never said the tshirts don't exist, he says you haven't proven your assertion that they "are the most popular among Muslims". Why would you claim he said something he didn't?

What I probably said was that home-grown terrorists were likely to be recent converts, and that even in the ME joiners of ISIS were unlikely to have been well-schooled in Islam. In the States, there are approximately 3.45 million Muslims. If 25% of those are new converts, that's 862,000. The incidence of home grown terror attacks are pretty small compared to total number of converts. Most converts to any religion do not go for the most extreme version, but some do. So it can be true both that many new converts will help create a more progressive Islam and that some new converts can be easier turned to extremism.

210? All at once? Over time? Cite? I've heard of a couple of incidents where ISIS members have done that, and was generally condemned by Muslims.

So it's not that I don't think Muslim don't follow the "tenants of their" faith, I just don't think the "tenants of their faith" are as set in stone as you and DoP and Argus would have us believe. Therefore, Muslim individuals can follow their faith without actually behaving like ISIS. I do not believe most Muslims will kill gays, disbelievers or apostates. I do believe most of them think gays cannot be Muslims. Most countries that make homosexuality illegal jail them, thwy don't kill them outright. They may believe that apostates and non-believers will/should die, but I believe most of them expect someone else to do it- Allah or their government. Not many really think it's up to them to kill them. I believe most Muslims believe women should submit to their husbands/fathers/brothers. I don't believe most of them believe it's ok to beat the crap out of the women in their family, but I have no problem believing such domestic abuse is more prevalent among Muslims than among Western Christians. I also don't believe actual pedophilia is more common among Muslims than among the general non-Muslim population. I do believe child marriage is more socially acceptable in the MENA region than in the West. I don't believe Islam is the only driver of most of these things because similar social attitudes are prevalent among non-Muslims as well in that part of the world. As for Sharia - its practiced in many different ways in the world, so the warning that "Creeping Sharia" can only end in all Western women wearing Burkas and risking life and limb if we don't conform makes no sense to me. Anyway I don't believe any widespread Sharia is likely in the West, despite the existence of councils to address some limited family/inheritance things. I do disagree with these councils, just for the record. Finally, among Muslims in Western lands, those that are born here are likely to grow up more progressive than their parents; 25% of them actually leave Islam (based on US figures). Sadly, that 25% is replaced by Western converts (mostly from Christianity), but it's a stretch to believe that those converts are going to embrace the most violent form of Islam, as preached by DoP. Ergo, the Western version of Islam is becoming and will become more progressive over time. I think even in MENA that will happen, especially with increasing influence from Western born and raised Muslims.

Islam is a religion that supports misogyny, violence, homophobia and other exclusionary beliefs. Some governments and individuals use that to control and impose draconian punishments on people. Most Muslims are better than their religion.

Christianity is gonna be taking over too, soon as God gets around to killing all non-Christians. Perhaps Allah and God will have to duke it out as to gets "the people". Of course, they'd be fighting themselves, since they're essentially the same "being". Or, if those dastardly Muslims convert or kill the entire earth, God's Christian Armageddon will eliminate the entire population of non-Christians. Either way, being neither Christian nor Muslim, I'm hooped.

I guess when you have no argument left, your default is to start calling people dishonest. I guess I musta won this round. Ciao.

Might not be, but would depend on the context. If it were common among Far Right/Islamophobes, I'd probably think it represented their views and I'd assume most people did not agree. I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't say "Canadians want to give Muslims the boot". If it was being worn by every 2nd person I saw, then maybe I'd start to think (and say) "Canadians want to give Muslims the boot".

I don't see young Muslims wearing politically incorrect t-shirts as a threat. Islamophobes do.

What are you talking about? It was an honest question, I don't know why you wouldn't be able to post to a single thread, I thought bans were forum-wide, but maybe I've been wrong. Not to mention, I haven't "attacked" you, I've merely noted that your source doesn't support your claim. How the F that an "attack"? I also haven't defended said t-shirts, they're just T-shirts, what's to defend? I merely offered an alternative reason for the popularity of them at that particular time.

This is all true, and nobody is accusing you of making up the T-shirt or making it popular. What you said was "the most popular tshirt for Muslims is a shirt that says "2030 - then we take over" Neither of your links support your claim that the t-shirt is the "most popular for Muslims." Your links say that its "popular" among "young Muslims" in a certain locale. You have essentially exaggerated the information so that Muslims can be presented in as threatening a manner as possible.

Neither of your links support your initial statement that these t-shirts were the most popular ones among Muslims, btw. Both of them talk about the t-shirt being "popular among young Muslims" at a certain place. Neither of these claim "most popular" or "among (all) Muslins". Also, this was around the time research from Pew suggested Muslims would become a majority in 2030 in Europe by 2030 and in UK by 2050. I can certainly see a trend among young Muslims wearing such a t-shirt to poke fun at/piss off a certain segment of the population. Kinda like the shirt popular among some Republucans that says "Better to be Russian than Democrat". I went looking for that "30-year t-Shirt, btw, and didn't find it. Perhaps the trend has run its course.

Just as it's your choice to believe every claim that puts Muslims in a bad light, and everybody who disagrees with that based on their own research are apologists for the evil of Islam. Why can't you post on the other thread? Have you been banned just from that thread?

I agree; I'd already decided to put my vote elsewhere because I do not want to support Trudeau, even though overall my preference is the Liberal platform. In fairness to the Liberals, they have managed to fulfill many of their 2015 campaign promises. I'm waffling between Green and NDP. I haven't seen the full platform of either yet, but what I have seen of the Green's looks like a recycled 2015 Liberal platform. It's hard for me to consider Trudeau's actions in the past "worse" than Scheer's but I do agree that slinging decades old mud is poor strategy. Also lying about the other side's platform, which I've seen from both Liberals and Conservatives do. Very irritating, yet so common.

Except you are not sitting around a kitchen table having a few beer. This is a forum where opinions are expected to be supported through the use of cites. You are the one doing it wrong, not the people who provide and expect to see cites.

It's actually in the guidelines, along with "don't be a troll", and "don't insult other posters": "Research Your Post: If you are stating a fact, be prepared to back it up with some official sources (website links etc).....Therefore, it is in your best interest to make sure that your post includes sufficient sources and contains a well-researched and well-organized argument" Anecdotal stuff generally holds more emotional weight for people than facts, just the way humans are. I live in Surrey BC and some people who live here believe Surrey has the highest gun crime in Canads, but it's actually way down the list, 60th according to Macleans. Marcus's link provides an analysis of several claimed Muslim no-go zones, by someone who lives in London. Some of the claimed no-go zones include financial districts, malls, airports and the Tower of London. Data of comings and goings via public transport show 10s of millions of people entering and leaving these "no-go zones". Cameras in these areas also show a diversity of people. The origin of these claims, when traced back, originates from far right sources.

Actually, no. I haven't read the article and don't know what happened. Merely pointing out the pretzel shape you are employing to make sure you can blame "The Left".

Yet, when its pointed out that it was the "far-right evangelicals" who went looking, you suddenly change your tune: Did you break anything, changing direction so fast like that? I mean, other than your credibility.