Usual Guardian one-sided drivel
 

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...c-country-jobs

As 'Islamophobia' is a made -up word used by those with a clear agenda to shut down any criticism of one particular religion, including both the author of the article and the left-wing newspaper, what value do such emotive articles have other than to stir and further attempt to shut down any discussion on Islam. How better to control!

"Islamophobia is a made up word, and I know this because sometimes it's difficult to criticise the religion"

I don't agree with this article so it is therefore drivel and I will continue to post fair balanced articles from sources such as the sun or daily mail

I have hardly ever posted any articles from the Sun because the paper is crap and rarely from the Mail so as not to give certain posters the excuse to rubbish it as you well know.

I post articles from a wider variety of sources than most on here, again as you well know. No surprise though that you conviently ignore such facts to suit your agenda.

Whether or not you believe in "Islamophobia", you only have to look at the article's title know it'll be a pile of rubbish. Why bother bringing it to light, just the let that particular blogger cry into her Starbucks mug and move on.

The headlines of opinion pieces are written by the editor not the author

Islamophobia doesn't exist because somebody who isn't a muslim and has serious hatred for those that are said so.

The article seemed quite balanced to me, any conclusions were based off of established facts and stats and she even acknowledged the fact that Muslim women are held back by patriarchy and traditions within muslim families so I fail to understand your claims that it isn't a balanced article.

I assume you googled for stories about muslims, saw this headline and decided to get mad about it without actually reading the article itself. I'd advise you do so although I still suppose you'd try to invalidate it as you cannot accept opinions that don't allign with your own. Instead of arguing against an opinion you dislike, you can only try to shut them down.

So you haven't read the article?

The head knows you are right ...

I did not, but from your previous post it's good to know she called out some of the cackier aspects of islamic culture :)

If I had an argument, and it could be shut down entirely by a single negative descriptor of my argument, I'd probably conclude that i don't have much of an argument. Probably because that single negative word would probably tell me a lot that I didn't know about myself before I made the argument.

So you're judging an article without reading it?

Very true, only the flimsiest of arguments can be shut down with one word.

Well obviously it's one-sided, that's kind of the point of an opinion piece.

As the well respected Dr. Jordan Peterson, who has been studying Islam for at least three years, said 'The word Islamophobia is a reprehensible word, a crooked word with manipulation built into its structure. Phobia is a word with medical, clinical and psychological meaning and the word Islamophobia has no place and no value within those fields'.

It is purely an agenda driven word used by those with an agenda - nothing more and nothing less.

Aren't all words made up?

Phobia also means irrational, and there's nothing irrational about disliking islam. Needs to at that doesn't justifying assaulting individual muslims, but being fearful or whatever toward the ideology is justified.
Either way, it's semantics, who cares.

Dr Jordan Peterson, who studied Islam for whatever reason didn't seem to study word origins though? A very quick Google explains that the Greek word loosely translates to 'an aversion to', and has many non-clinical uses which describe a dislike, prejudice or disapproval.
You and Dr Jordan have looked at a suffix of a word, took it very literallly, shoved your fingers in your ears, and then kicked up a fuss. And thats a bit silly.

So another non muslim telling muslims that islamophobia doesn't exist.

Go back to the 50's and this guy would probably be saying the same thing to black people about racism.

Also you should really read the article that you took the time to post. You obviously haven't read anything but the headline.

Come back when you have the qualifications and experience he has. Give me an informed opinion over an emotional one.

Let's not forget for those Muslims looking to shut down any criticism of Islam the word is a very convenient one. It is used as a weapon by many to further their agendas and it has no valid meaning except in the eyes of those using it.

Seriously?

You, who refused to read the article YOU posted because it doesn't justify your hatred is accusing me, who actually READ the article, of being uninformed is just....well I can't say I'm surprised because your insane level of hypocrisy is incapable of surprising me anymore.

He can have all the qualifications in the world, none of which would allow him to tell a minority that he isn't part of that they aren't discriminated against. There's no qualifications for that ****.

I did read it. When did I say I didn't? More of the usual hysterical assumptions from you in a desperate attempt to undermine me.

The opinions of minories are still only opinions, not fact. And even if some employers are hesitant to employ Muslims it would be very convenient to lay the blame solely at the feet of the employer as the religion has so many codes of behaviour and dress. I would imagine not many employers would be too keen to have women turning up for work in a burkha for instance or workers requiring several paid prayer breaks throughout the day and a room to use as a prayer room.

I can't see many Muslim employers choosing a non-Muslim over a Muslim if equally qualified. Employers often state they want someone who will fit it. Employees also expect to have to adhere to certain dress codes. It's called the real world.

To be fair Peterson didn't say muslims aren't discriminated against, he said that "Islamophobia" isn't the right word.

perhaps in your world but in my world its very irrational. ISIS doesn't represent Islam and so being fearful of what Islam represents isn't justified either. Education is a great resource to your fears but be warned, the wrong sort of education could have you believe all Muslims are warriors who think alike.

SCREAMS... This bitter pill again?

Straaaawmaaaan. I didn't mention ISIS, nor did I say all muslims think alike. However, islamic culture currently includes FGM, throwing gay off rooves, and child marriage. Which of these is it irrational to be against?

That reads as only anything pro-Islam is the 'right' education. Blinkered maybe!

As those children have no say in their marriages often to much older men it is also child rape.

Yes you are, extremely! If that's how you read DR's comment then that shows just how blinkered you are. Your motto should be 'Hate and divide'.

No my motto is to 'question dubious religious practice'. Without such questioning all number of atrocities have been carried out in the name of religion.

Using terminology such as 'hate and divide' against those that question is diversion tactics and a weak attempt to shut down such questioning.

There are dubious practices amongst the vast majority of religions yet you constantly only drone on about those attributed to the Muslim religion. Far more people in the UK have suffered at the hands of the Catholic religion.

How about antisemitism, is that made up?

So you are saying it's irrational to be an atheist? :shrug: But it's not irrational to believe there is a king in the sky who will let you into a virgin debauching party when you die? And We will all be down with that if we are educated?

Maybe, maybe not - but Islam is the religion currently out there, constantly shoved down our throats and the one even given a made-up name in an attempt to shut down criticism. It is the most vocal demanding special treatment such as sharia law, prayer breaks in the workplace, exemption from criticism and jokes, automatic respect from non-Muslims whilst not doing the same for other religions. The dubious practices of the religion often seem to get lost behind all that.

Not to my knowledge.

Could that not be said to be a made up word that is used when a specific group is criticised?

Don't want to appear hypocritical do you?

In the past, sure. It's a bit of a moot point as there aren't any post defending Catholicism, nor any threads about it.

In the past?... :/

It isn't a 'moot' point it is entirely comparable, is it perhaps not considered repressive, oppressive and suppressive enough due to the fact it happens to be a Christian religion?

Well as many Muslims seem to be antisemetic it's a strange word to try to make comparisons with.

Whatever, at least it isn't a word trying to hide behind a 'clinical' definition to give it more clout. It's pretentious nonsence.

All words have a clinical definition, that's why there are dictionaries.

Again you are entirely fixating on Muslims...My point is if there is a word that defines the maligning of one group why then is it so unreasonable to have a word equal in it's definition for another.

It appears hypocritical