Now just what the fuck do we say to those opposed to Islam when they see this?

[AK]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuNWpKShLfY

Of course, its not common. But when we attack people who hate immigrants and refugees, what do we say if they bring up things such as this?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Read Marx more.

[bcbm]

FQlDa4tQ0Lc

[anticap]

I'm certainly not going to defend that, but I've seen indigenous "rites of passage" rituals on PBS (public television, for you non-Yanks) that I found far more troubling.

As for "Fat Aussie Barstard," his ancestors submitted the aboriginal Australians to much harsher treatment, and it wasn't voluntary (granted, the kids in this video couldn't legally consent either).

And as for his "paranoia" about what Islam is doing to its children, I'd simply invite him to look down at his own penis (if he can see it past his gut), which, if it's like mine, was mutilated according to Judeo-Christian custom before he could even verbalize an objection.

[Devrim]

What is it? I can't watch YouTube.
Devrim

[AK]

What is it? I can't watch YouTube.
Devrim
It's a video of some Muslims making cuts in the heads of each other and their children.

[AK]

FQlDa4tQ0Lc
Unfortunately, his racist prejudice is going to kick in when he sees that it's in the Phillipines.


As for "Fat Aussie Barstard," his ancestors submitted the aboriginal Australians to much harsher treatment, and it wasn't voluntary (granted, the kids in this video couldn't legally consent either).
You're right, yes. But people like him would say "it was my ancestors who did it, not me"; which is something quite true.


And as for his "paranoia" about what Islam is doing to its children, I'd simply invite him to look down at his own penis (if he can see it past his gut), which, if it's like mine, was mutilated according to Judeo-Christian custom before he could even verbalize an objection.
Hmm, I never actually knew Christians did that, too :blink:

[Devrim]

It's a video of some Muslims making cuts in the heads of each other and their children.

I presume that they are Shi'a and it is Ashura. I am opposed to Islam anyway, but if you mean bigots going on about Muslims, you could try pointing out that not only do some Catholics whip themselves:


Some members of strict monastic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monastic) orders, and some members of the lay organization Opus Dei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_Dei)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-flagellation#cite_note-8), practice mild self-flagellation using an instrument called a "discipline", a cattail whip usually made of knotted cords, which is flung over the shoulders repeatedly during private prayer.

Also some wear that weird studded thing whose name I can't remember on their legs as seen in the Da Vinci code.

While it is true that these things are both rare, so are these practices within Islam.

However one thing that you will have to concede is that Muslims, of course because they are complete religious loonies only do this one day a year. Catholics on the other hand being a Western, not associated with light brown people living in poor countries and therefore much more reasonable and normal religion, do it all year round.

Devrim

[Qayin]

Im not anti-arab but why the fuck should I be pro islam? I dont get OP's question. Islam is a cancer along with all religious bullshit

[Devrim]

Unfortunately, his racist prejudice is going to kick in when he sees that it's in the Phillipines.:blink:

Interestingly enough, I saw Catholics in the Philippines nailing themselves to crosses and being crucified by their friends on TV the other day for Easter. It is lucky that they only do normal things like that and don't take part in the really EXTREMIST LUNATIC ACTIONS that Muslims do, like making small symbolic cuts on their heads, which as everbody who has ever cut there head knows, always bled a lot a look much worse than they really are.

Devrim

[Wanted Man]

Unfortunately, his racist prejudice is going to kick in when he sees that it's in the Phillipines.


You're right, yes. But people like him would say "it was my ancestors who did it, not me"; which is something quite true.


Hmm, I never actually knew Christians did that, too :blink:

Who is "he"? The person who made the video? Someone who's "winning" a discussion with you by posting this video? If you know that all responses are going to be illogical, why do you care?

[black magick hustla]

Interestingly enough, I saw Catholics in the Philippines nailing themselves to crosses and being crucified by their friends on TV the other day for Easter. It is lucky that they only do normal things like that and don't take part in the really EXTREMIST LUNATIC ACTIONS that Muslims do, like making small symbolic cuts on their heads, which as everbody who has ever cut there head knows, always bled a lot a look much worse than they really are.

Devrim

yeah this. i dont get the outrage. they are just small cuts. they dont hurt at all, they are just shocking. people are dumb

[GracchusBabeuf]

Now just what the fuck do we say to those opposed to Islam when they see this?
Say we're opposed to the backward and barbaric practices of Islam and all religions in particular only but not Muslims or religious people in general. I hope you don't consider yourself a "post-modernist" or some such thing who supports all kinds of backward practices just because it is not "Western". Such an attitude is totally anti-progressive. We need to put an end to such practices as violently "practicing" religion on the streets . Religion needs to be made a private affair.

[black magick hustla]

Say we're opposed to the backward and barbaric practices of Islam and all religions in particular only but not Muslims or religious people in general. I hope you don't consider yourself a "post-modernist" or some such thing who supports all kinds of backward practices just because it is not "Western". Such an attitude is totally anti-progressive. We need to put an end to such practices as violently "practicing" religion on the streets . Religion needs to be made a private affair.

I understand but I think people are getting shocked more than what they need to. the cuts are almost harmless. If we are going to get shocked by this kind of silly things, we might as well ban american football, which is more dangerous.

[GracchusBabeuf]

I understand but I think people are getting shocked more than what they need to. the cuts are almost harmless. If we are going to get shocked by this kind of silly things, we might as well ban american football, which is more dangerous. True. They may be harmless cuts, but the effect is pretty chilling for anyone to see, especially when cuts are affected on babies and children.

[AK]

Say we're opposed to the backward and barbaric practices of Islam and all religions in particular only but not Muslims or religious people in general. I hope you don't consider yourself a "post-modernist" or some such thing who supports all kinds of backward practices just because it is not "Western". Such an attitude is totally anti-progressive. We need to put an end to such practices as violently "practicing" religion on the streets . Religion needs to be made a private affair.
Wow. What weird people these "post moderninsts" are. I agree, religion should be made private. And it shouldn't be forced on children like it happens so often.

[red cat]

This is very rare. The normal version consists of beating one's body with very blunt swords, so that no blood is shed, and children are not involved. Some older children might take part in the procession, but they don't carry any weapons, not even blunt ones.

There are extreme versions of normal customs in other religions too.

[Robocommie]

True. They may be harmless cuts, but the effect is pretty chilling for anyone to see, especially when cuts are affected on babies and children.

Yeah well, other people's cultures often come off as shocking to people when they witness something they don't understand for the first time, part of being a grown up is just learning to deal with it and not expecting people to act only like you do because it's "progressive" to do so. Frankly, as Red Cat said, this kind of thing is rare. In fact, wanting to know more, I found this on Wikipedia.


As suffering and cutting the body with knives or chains (matam) have been prohibited by many Shi'a marjas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marja) like Ali Khamenei (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei), Supreme Leader of Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader_of_Iran),[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Ashura#cite_note-ezsoftech.com-14) some Shi'a observe mourning with blood donation which is called "Qame Zani"[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Ashura#cite_note-ezsoftech.com-14) and flailing[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_Ashura#cite_note-15). Yet some Shi'ite men and boys, considered heretics by many Muslim scholars, slash themselves with razors or swords and allow their blood to run freely.

So this is actually extreme by the standards of most Shi'a.

[GracchusBabeuf]

it shouldn't be forced on children like it happens so often.This is part of the institution of family prevalent in most parts of the world. In capitalism, family takes on a role of producing children and putting them through education etc aimed at producing good wage slaves. Parents subjecting the children to their whims is part of growing up in capitalism. Therefore until the family, as an institution, is gradually abolished such things as forcing religion on children etc will keep happening.


There are extreme versions of normal customs in other religions too.I agree. Most religions are left overs from feudal cultures and in more feudal cultures, more extreme religious practices are still prevalent. Such aberrations will disappear with the disappearance of feudalism. That is not to say that in developed capitalist countries, extreme religious nuts do not exist. It can be said they are more of an exception than the rule.

[Glenn Beck]

This is completely not a big deal in any way. TBH I'm a little suspicious of the OP for thinking that this is any kind of argument that merits a rebuttal and not just HOLY SHIT BROWN PEOPLE SINGING IN A LANGUAGE I DON'T UNDERSTAND AND GIVING THEMSELVES SHALLOW SYMBOLIC CUTS, I'M SCARED.

I don't really think I would give a shit if a bunch of people started doing this in my town, in fact it would be a nice change of pace from the usual bullshit. I'd definitely go at least once if there was free food. Maybe I have a warped and primitive mindset on account of my Catholic upbringing.

[Jazzratt]

This is very rare. The normal version consists of beating one's body with very blunt swords, so that no blood is shed, and children are not involved. Some older children might take part in the procession, but they don't carry any weapons, not even blunt ones.

To be fair the cutting ritual sounds more appealing to me, but that could just be something to do with the connotations of the word "beating".

Religious people do weird stuff all the time, it's part and parcel of the whole believing in things that aren't really there thing. Going apeshit at muslims for it is ridiculously hypocritical.

[AK]

This is completely not a big deal in any way. TBH I'm a little suspicious of the OP for thinking that this is any kind of argument that merits a rebuttal and not just HOLY SHIT BROWN PEOPLE SINGING IN A LANGUAGE I DON'T UNDERSTAND AND GIVING THEMSELVES SHALLOW SYMBOLIC CUTS, I'M SCARED.
It may not merit a rebuttal, but one might be necessary considering most Australians are massive Islamophobes.

[GracchusBabeuf]

part of being a grown up is just learning to deal with it and not expecting people to act only like you do because it's "progressive" to do soDo you have some kind of weird fetish for feudal cultures?

[Glenn Beck]

It may not merit a rebuttal, but one might be necessary considering most Australians are massive Islamophobes.

Such as yourself?

After all, you're a member of this thinly veiled Islamophobe/nativist usergroup: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=345

[Robocommie]

Do you have some kind of weird fetish for feudal cultures?

No, I just have some kind of thing where I'm intolerant of cultural chauvinism, and blockheads who don't realize how mired they are in backwards 19th century ideas of ethnography, nor how clueless they are to how convenient it is that it's all those weird little foreign cultures that are most "anti-progress."

I have a problem with classifying living human beings as "feudal" as if they're display pieces in a museum exhibit, in the same way I'd have a problem with people calling Asian people "inscrutable" or calling rural people "quaint."

Really, I just have a problem with people who like to hide behind the shield of self-righteousness and enlightenment while using terms like "anti-progress" and "feudal" as codewords for "backwards savages."

Read a fucking anthropology textbook sometime. Or better yet, read some post-colonial Marxist works that were penned since the Second World War ended. Frantz Fanon is the perennial model. And while you're at it, you should keep in mind that to professional historians, the word "feudal" doesn't actually mean anything.

[Barry Lyndon]

I don't get the point of such a video. Islam is a religion of over a billion people, in countries with vastly different languages, cultures, and politics. Muslims, like any other group of people, are not monolithic and there is a wide diversity of opinion. There are plenty of Muslims who would denounce such practices as cruel, outmoded and barbaric just as surely as a non-Muslim would. So the argument, from both right-wing racists and liberal PC relativists that this is 'their' culture is BS, because no such uniform culture exists to begin with.
Moreover, this sword ritual is a Shia ritual in honor of the martyrdom of Imam Hussein I believe(the Shia are a minority sect in Islam). And even most Shia, to my knowledge, to not engage in such an extreme rite(I have relatives who are Iraqi Shia, and I sure as hell know that they don't do this).

[GracchusBabeuf]

I have a problem with classifying living human beings as "feudal" Feudalism is a stage of economic development. If you have a problem with classifying living human beings as feudal, then you should have a problem with classifying them as capitalist too. For some reason, when it comes to saying that people live in a capitalist society, you have no qualms whatsoever about that. However, when someone says feudal relations of production exist, you suddenly start getting all kinds of "problems" with it. This just goes to show how damaging and dangerous post-modernism can be as it only serves imperialism to keep people living under feudal and backwards conditions.

It is in the interest of imperialism to keep people living under feudal conditions and no, capitalism cannot lift people out of feudalism, as has been made evident over the past century (large swathes of Africa and Asia still live in feudal conditions). Only a proletarian revolution can do that. Unfortunately, with many "leftists" romanticizing about feudalism, there does not seem to be much hope for that now.

[Devrim]

I understand but I think people are getting shocked more than what they need to. the cuts are almost harmless. If we are going to get shocked by this kind of silly things, we might as well ban american football, which is more dangerous.

What about boxing?

Devrim

[Devrim]

True. They may be harmless cuts, but the effect is pretty chilling for anyone to see, especially when cuts are affected on babies and children.

I don't think it is chilling at all. When I lived in Beirut I used enjoy Ashura. People are in the streets. It is colourful, sort of like a carnival.

I didn't find it chilling at all. I used to take my daughter even. I thought of it as a fun family day out.

Also nobody is cutting babies.


I'd definitely go at least once if there was free food.

I would go even if there wasn't free food. Unfortunately they don't do it in Turkey, but they do have a special desert for it which isn't bad.

Devrim

[Devrim]

That is not to say that in developed capitalist countries, extreme religious nuts do not exist. It can be said they are more of an exception than the rule.

Contrary to popular belief, 'extreme religious nuts' are not running around everywhere in the Middle East either. Here too they are more of an exception than the rule.

Devrim

[anticap]

keep in mind that to professional historians, the word "feudal" doesn't actually mean anything.

And to professional economists, "political economy (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/commodityfetishism.htm)" is an outdated discipline.

I'm not necessarily suggesting a conspiracy among historians, but it's worth considering possible biases motivating changes in academia, and not simply taking impartiality for granted (not that that's what you're doing, I'm just taking the opportunity to raise the point).

[Devrim]

Feudalism is a stage of economic development. If you have a problem with classifying living human beings as feudal, then you should have a problem with classifying them as capitalist too.

I have a problem with classifying things as 'Feudal' in the way that you do. Not because I don't like the word, but because it is not accurate. Europe was Feudal. The Middle East was not. Feudalism actually means something more than pre-capitalist. Wiki describes it as such:


Feudalism is a decentralized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralization) sociopolitical structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure) in which a weak monarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy) attempts to control the lands of the realm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realm) through reciprocal agreements with regional leaders.

This is not the situation at all that held sway in the Middle East. In the Ottoman lands, for example, everyone was a slave of the Sultan and the big landowners that you saw in the West didn't exist. They also moved governors around precisely to stop them building up local power like the nobility in the West.

Devrim

[Devrim]

(the Shia are a minority sect in Islam).

I think the word you are looking for is denomination, not sect.

Devrim

[AK]

Such as yourself?

After all, you're a member of this thinly veiled Islamophobe/nativist usergroup: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=345
:blink: I'm a member of that?

You realise I must also be some sort of Christiophobe and Judeophobe as well according to you.

[Wanted Man]

Such as yourself?

After all, you're a member of this thinly veiled Islamophobe/nativist usergroup: http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=345

I like that; "Abrahamic imperialism", yeah, that's what's wrong with the world today. :rolleyes:

[Robocommie]

Feudalism is a stage of economic development. If you have a problem with classifying living human beings as feudal, then you should have a problem with classifying them as capitalist too. For some reason, when it comes to saying that people live in a capitalist society, you have no qualms whatsoever about that. However, when someone says feudal relations of production exist, you suddenly start getting all kinds of "problems" with it. This just goes to show how damaging and dangerous post-modernism can be as it only serves imperialism to keep people living under feudal and backwards conditions.

Yes, the Marxist definition of feudalism IS an economic one, describing an economic relationship. That has fuck all to do with this. At this point it seems like you're trying to hide behind the credibility of historical materialism because your cultural chauvinism is indefensible - lashing out at post-modernism as "dangerous" because it won't condone what is, frankly, a Victorian approach to culture and religion.

Waging culture wars in the name of "progress" is the rallying cry of colonialism and cultural imperialism. You're showing your ignorance of just how much damage European hegemony can do by describing the cultural and religious idiosyncrasies of other peoples as primitive and backwards - and then trying to justify it by couching it in economic terms.



It is in the interest of imperialism to keep people living under feudal conditions and no, capitalism cannot lift people out of feudalism, as has been made evident over the past century (large swathes of Africa and Asia still live in feudal conditions). Only a proletarian revolution can do that. Unfortunately, with many "leftists" romanticizing about feudalism, there does not seem to be much hope for that now.It's funny you should phrase it this way, because in Marx's orthodox analysis, the proletariat actually forms from the synthesis of feudalism into capitalism.

[Robocommie]

And to professional economists, "political economy (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/%7Ergibson/commodityfetishism.htm)" is an outdated discipline.

I'm not necessarily suggesting a conspiracy among historians, but it's worth considering possible biases motivating changes in academia, and not simply taking impartiality for granted (not that that's what you're doing, I'm just taking the opportunity to raise the point).

Medievalists are increasingly beginning to reject the term "feudalism" not because of its associations with Marxism, but because it's a term which has been used in so many different ways to refer to so many different things that it's becoming useless. Likewise, people often use "feudalism" to refer to things in a very uniform manner but that overlooks the actual complexity and non-uniform nature of medieval economics, not to mention all the other places and times that are described as "feudal" in ways that are only vaguely appropriate.

Marx never intended historical materialism to be some grand, all encompassing theory of history, and he was often irritated by the use of materialism to support philosophical speculation and broad generalizations. So it is here with the usage of the term "feudal".

[anticap]

Medievalists are increasingly beginning to reject the term "feudalism" not because of its associations with Marxism

I wasn't alluding to anything so specific, but making a broader point.

I'm more-or-less familiar with the rationalizations made for the term "feudalism" falling out of favor.

[Robocommie]

I wasn't alluding to anything so specific, but making a broader point.

I'm more-or-less familiar with the rationalizations made for the term "feudalism" falling out of favor.

Okay, I dig it then. :thumbup1:

[Ismail]

I like that; "Abrahamic imperialism", yeah, that's what's wrong with the world today. :rolleyes:The only discussion in that group was a thing to change it from "Oppose radical Islam" to "oppose Abrahamic imperialism." It's pretty obvious that "Abrahamic imperialism" is a front for "oppose the Mohammedan hordes."

[khad]

Do you have some kind of weird fetish for feudal cultures?


Feudalism is a stage of economic development. If you have a problem with classifying living human beings as feudal, then you should have a problem with classifying them as capitalist too.If you're going to talk about feudalism, you better be prepared to show that those Muslims live as serfs or own serfs. Historical materialism isn't just some convenient shield for cultural chauvinism.

Consider this a verbal warning.

[anticap]

John Dewey called capitalism "industrial feudalism," and I've seen it referred to as "economic feudalism" in many places (and have used that term myself, when I'm feeling snarky). Frankly, I don't find it at all controversial to view global capitalism as little more than a modified form of feudalism -- and not just in terms of the workplace, but of the interplay between capitalist states. I could go into detail as to the analogies, but suffice it to say that this designation ought not be off-limits, IMO.

[Ismail]

John Dewey called capitalism "industrial feudalism," and I've seen it referred to as "economic feudalism" in many places (and have used that term myself, when I'm feeling snarky).That makes you a fine social-democrat like Dewey, but it does not make you a Marxist nor a person who uses Marxist analysis.

If people are confused about what feudalism is, I recommend they look at this: http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/chapter_iii.htm

Edit: Also, Africa is simply not feudal. No Marxist analysis can produce any conclusion that Africa is feudal unless you restrict it to feudal-like governments in Swaziland, the autonomous Kingdoms in Uganda, and some other small autonomous tribal kingdoms, and in these cases the rulers have adopted capitalism and have enriched themselves.

[khad]

That makes you a fine social-democrat like Dewey, but it does not make you a Marxist nor a person who uses Marxist analysis.

If people are confused about what feudalism is, I recommend they look at this: http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/chapter_iii.htm
Indeed, John Dewey was never a Marxist, nor was he ever part of any revolutionary leftist intellectual tradition. At best this anticap is confused about what historical materialism is in the first place.

[GracchusBabeuf]

Wow. Why are you not handing out warnings to those who claim that people living in socialist societies were "capitalist"? Anyway, 60% of Africans are agricultural laborers. It seems that in some people's fetish for post-modern "sensitivity", they forget the real problems of development faced by Africa and Asia.

Also, I claimed earlier that religion itself is a leftover from feudal times.

[anticap]

That makes you a fine social-democrat like Dewey, but it does not make you a Marxist nor a person who uses Marxist analysis.

If people are confused about what feudalism is, I recommend they look at this: http://www.kibristasosyalistgercek.net/english/polecon/chapter_iii.htm

Another swarm of RevLeft slurs. They're thick today.

1. I'm not a social-democrat.

2. I don't even know anything about Dewey except that he used that term, and I liked it.

3. Not everyone here identifies as a Marxist, despite your presumptions that they ought to.

4. Not all those who do identify as Marxists share your understanding of the term.

5. I know what feudalism was. I also know when something resembles it, and I know how to draw a distinction between an analogy and a literal claim (I've met several RevLefters who've shown themselves to be incapable of this).

6. I'll call those analogies when I see them, if I think they'll make a useful point in the right company, and I won't bat an eyelash over whether a follower of Enver Hoxha would approve or not.



At best this anticap is confused about what historical materialism is in the first place.1. I am not.

2. So what if I was? (See above, re: the error of assuming that everyone at this forum adheres to everything you do. It happens that I do accept HM, but your error remains.)

3. I'll thank you not to refer to me as "this."

[Devrim]

This little bit of power really has gone to your head, hasn't it? I don't think that the pre-capitalist Middle-East was feudal, but thinking it is is, in my opinion a mistaken analyis based on a lack of knowledge of history, not cultural chauvanism.

Are you now going to warn all of the Maoists evertime they use the term 'semi-feudal'?

Devrim

[khad]

This little bit of power really has gone to your head, hasn't it? I don't think that the pre-capitalist Middle-East was feudal, but thinking it is is, in my opinion a mistaken analyis based on a lack of knowledge of history, not cultural chauvanism.
This decision was done in consultation, as was the decision to ban DancingLarry, which was not my call. You must not have any clue how the mod team works, if you think this is unilateral mod abuse.


Are you now going to warn all of the Maoists evertime they use the term 'semi-feudal'?
Semi-feudal isn't feudal. Get over yourself.

[Ismail]

1. I'm not a social-democrat.Good point, this post proved you don't know what the hell you're talking about.


2. I don't even know anything about Dewey except that he used that term, and I liked it.Except it's anti-Marxist.


3. Not everyone here identifies as a Marxist, despite your presumptions that they ought to.I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people on RevLeft are Marxists or Marxist-inspired Anarchists. The rest generally end up in OI.


4. Not all those who do identify as Marxists share your understanding of the term.Care to point out any Marxist who says that capitalism is merely a type of feudalism?


6. I'll call those analogies when I see them, if I think they'll make a useful point in the right company, and I won't bat an eyelash over whether a follower of Enver Hoxha would approve or not.Ah yes, that dreary Enver and his feudo-staliano-socialist ways. The backwards people of Albania clearly deserve ridicule. Indeed, they are apparently so lowly that Ecuadorians vote Hoxhaists into office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movimiento_Popular_Democr%C3%A1tico) while Malian feudal Africans do the same (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malian_Party_of_Labour). There's even an international (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Conference_of_Marxist%E2%80%93Lenini st_Parties_and_Organizations_%28Unity_%26_Struggle %29). But of course, they're Ecuadorians and Malians (and general brown people), so what do they know?

[Sir Comradical]

Hate on Islam all you want, it's a reactionary piece of shit ideology that has nothing to offer workers anyway. However, hating on Muslims is racist.

[gorillafuck]

I have seen so many things that are more "barbaric" than that. That was putting small cuts on your head for a festival. Going to watch a UFC fight is twenty times more "barbaric" than that.

[Devrim]

I have no idea how the mod team works. Nor am I interested. I think it is run by a clique of people who are more interested in asserting their 'power' than discussing politics. It is a bit of a joke really.

I do think there is a problem with this constant 'warning' and infracting' for anything that doesn't fit exactly in with their the mod teams very PC view of the world, where avoiding using certain terms is much more important than developing real discussion, which creates a culture where accusing somebody of being a racist or chauvinist is considered an acceptable way of making a political argument.

Devrim

[GracchusBabeuf]

I do realize now that I was being Eurocentric in my criticism of Ashura.:crying:

[Comrade B]

How many Muslims do you honestly think do this? Fuck, this is like showing a video of Christians speaking in tongues and saying that that is all Christianity. Most Muslims are pretty fucking normal people.

After reading a bit more, this is apparently of Ashura, which is pretty big in Iran. This is a ceremony only done by the Shiites, the smaller branch of Islam. Also, Catholic monks used to (still do?) whip themselves and inflict wounds similar to those which Jesus apparently died with. The idea was meditating on his pain.

[Dr Mindbender]

IMO the filipino video was more shocking.