• Candelestine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    64
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think that’s reasonable, given the circumstances.

    Just because we have freedoms doesn’t mean everyone does. So when we burn one of their books, without the context of that same freedom that we have, they don’t really necessarily understand what we’re trying to say. Just that we hate their sacred book.

    We’re really trying to say more than that though, we don’t hate the book, we hate the actions some people do in its name. I don’t think that always gets communicated though, since they don’t necessarily follow our news.

    • BakedGoods@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah great idea to let literally insane people force policy on us through threats and violence. It’s only reasonable.

    • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah, Islamism (not Islam) promotes an extremely aggressive stance against anything that may offend them. And guess what? Islamism is thriving in Muslim countries

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        extremely aggressive stance against anything that may offend them.

        It’s a method of control.

        Cults and totalitarian leaders rely on creating an “us vs them” mentality where they paint the outside world as evil people who “hate” the cult members and want to harm them. So they will stay in the cult.

        A bunch of westerners desecrating their region’s sacred texts is exactly what Islamicist leaders like to see because it visually corroborates the worldview they are trying to instill in their people.

          • Candelestine@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah, got it. Yeah, theocracies suck. I think undermining them without infuriating them would be a more intelligent strategy though.

              • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t care how they feel, I just care how useful it is to them. They can use some things more than others. Burning their favorite things is something they can use for sure.

                Making all their women want to wear bikinis and their teenagers want to watch movies and play video games is harder for them to make use of. And probably more effective in the long run. Soft power, basically.

            • Windex007@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, if we step back and observe the situation, we can see the best strategy is to threaten violence.

              Why? Because one side wanted to impose their sensibilities on the other, threatened them with violent retribution, and then got what they wanted. It WORKS.

              And now that it is a proven strategy, there is no reason to bother exploring other alternatives. Threatening violence is EASY. It’s the lowest and simplest rhetoric available. Also, there are always nutjobs in the wings who will independently act on violent rhetoric if you just keep pumping it. You don’t even have to plan or direct the actual violence, it’ll just happen organically.

              So yeah, based on the results of this, I think any reasonable person would conclude violence and threats of violence are a simple and effective way to achieve political goals in Denmark.

              • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Reasonable, and extremely simple person, maybe. I see what you’re saying though. Similar to the “don’t negotiate with terrorists” thing.

              • kaput@jlai.lu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There la a Southpark episode coming To this exact conclusion. Violence works. It’s a sad truth

              • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                1 year ago

                Theocracy and fascism are not mutually exclusive. Fascism means you’re hyper-patriotic, theocracy means you’re getting your rules from some ancient book. You can be both at the same time.

                And I disagree, I doubt the problem would go away if we just Thanos-blinked Islam from existence. Culture goes a lot deeper than mere religion.

                • diprount_tomato@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Oh I see the problem, you got the definition of theocracy wrong. A theocracy is a form of government where the head of state is a priest, like Iran. Iran is a theocracy not because it’s Islamist but because its head of state is an ayatollah.

                  Islamists don’t have to be priests to rule.

                  And when did I bring the “make Islam disappear” up?

                  • Candelestine@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I was moving back to my original thesis, which is that offending them doesn’t accomplish much. I don’t perceive Islam itself to be the problem.

                    I admit I don’t fully understand what you’re specifically trying to say though.

      • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        This. The very essence of our free, liberal western democracies is threatened when we bow to religious demands. That’s completely misguided tolerance and a defeatist attitude towards extremism.

        If a religion is not compatible with an open and pluralist society then it’s not the society that has to change, it’s the religious dipshits who have to cope with it or honestly go and fuck themselves somewhere else.