149
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Windex007@lemmy.world 10 points 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.

[-] kaput@jlai.lu 3 points 1 year ago

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

[-] Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Twas an episode explaining how Muhamed got the power to not be made fun of

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 2 points 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.

[-] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Good luck. Undermining their authority infuriates them all by itself.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 4 points 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.

[-] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

That's like making a fire that doesn't burn. And no, it's closer to fascism than to a theocracy

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 8 points 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 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 5 points 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.

[-] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Islamism has taken over Muslim countries, islamists feel threatened over anything that might challenge them, something challenges them, they cry about it, Denmark bows to them

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

But how does this relate to the book burning ban being a good or bad idea?

[-] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because it's basically giving Islamism concessions. The Qur'an burning is a mild one, but just imagine they do it with more serious issues.

[-] Candelestine@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I see now. Someone else mentioned it too, it's similar to how we don't negotiate with terrorists imo.

Personally I'm against all book burning, religious or no. In this instance though, it's not just that Islamists are against it, as much as it giving them free recruitment ammunition, to help motivate their populace.

There's always a certain percentage of crazies in any society. They benefit if they can recruit more moderate people to that extremist position. When we attack them, either physically or ideologically, we feed into that mechanism that strengthens them by giving them more of what they want. They say they don't want us to burn their quoran, but I suspect their leaders are actually extremely happy when we do.

We're literally shooting ourselves in the foot.

[-] Addv4@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

In the US, a parallel would be evangelicals. For reference, a lot of them are republicans because their values somewhat align (anti-abortion for instance is a pretty big evangelist topic, same with banning talk/rights of lgbtq in public spaces) and they are having more of an effect on politics over the last few years. Also, they rather like book burning as well, excepting the Bible.

[-] Diprount_Tomato@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Oh don't even mention that heretical joke of Christianity that claims to be true but was founded 1700 years after Jesus taught

this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2023
149 points (95.7% liked)

World News

39402 readers
2320 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS