It's hard because people will always be mad when their stuff gets taken down and it's hard to tell where the line is. A good example on reddit is that r/the_Donald is often very racist, islamophobic, and misogynistic (and it's not a small portion, often the top comment on a post will be something that is islamophobic) but they don't see themselves as that way. I don't think they should ban that sub but even being impartial politically it's not desirable for most advertising
Can you define "Islamophobia"? It's a serious question, I don't disagree that there's some prejudice against Islam on the western right.
However, a lot of the top posts are ultimately factual claims. Sweden has a rise in grenade attacks and sexual assaults, British police looked the other way when Muslim Men formed a pedophilia group, most terrorism is motivated by Islam, and there are Islamists whose purported goal is to destroy western civilization. Is it Islamaphobic to highlight these things?
Islamists are right wing themselves (or at least their views map better to right wing views than left wing views) so we need a better lens than "left vs right" to determine the boundaries of the conflict.
Snopes says the increase in reported sexual assaults in Sweden could possibly be to do with the definition of "sexual assault" changing in 2013[0]
Regarding the Paedophile ring, I haven't read any material on it - but there have been several high profile non-Muslim paedophilia cases in Britain, and it would be unsurprising to me if police didn't turn a blind eye at some point. There are some claims that police didn't properly investigate reports in the Jimmy Saville case [1]
Regarding the claim that "most terrorism is motivated by Islam" - are you referring to terrorism globally, or in western countries? And what time period are we talking about here? One interesting data point is that Britain is experiencing historically low rates of terrorism (and most of it was related to The Troubles in Northern Ireland, not Islam) [2]
So the facts above are correct, but the root cause is misattributed to Islam?
> The failure to address the abuse was attributed to a combination of factors revolving around race, class and gender—contemptuous and sexist attitudes toward the mostly working-class victims; fear that the perpetrators' ethnicity would trigger allegations of racism and damage community relations; the Labour council's reluctance to challenge a Labour-voting ethnic minority; lack of a child-centred focus; a desire to protect the town's reputation; and lack of training and resources.
Citing snopes and the telegraph? Give me a break. This is a widely documented trend, made worse by the fact that it's illegal to report the demographics of offenders.
Today, through browsing r/popular, I saw a post about a swedish woman having been raped by a refugee. The comments were neither factual or objective. Most actually claimed she deserved it, because she "probably voted for the left".
Be careful about who you try to defend here, just read any top comment. And dont confuse facts with what's really relevant. For instance, a few days ago I saw a discussion about this:
> a police officer is eighteen and a half times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be by a police officer
This is true, and tries to paint a picture of black males being violent (should've seen the comments). But it's two incomparable metrics! Actually, a police officer is ~165 times likelier to be killed by a white male given the same rules.
So yeah, "facts", but always distorted in these subreddits.
I don't think facts themselves are ever really the issue. My opinion is that in how they cherry-pick facts and events to highlight there is an implicit generalization about a group, and I object to that generalization, not the facts themselves. People on the subreddit will often give specific facts or events which by themselves are true but with how they are presented will imply that most Muslims are violent and it's the underlying implication that I would object to. I just went to the subreddit and it was pretty easy to find an article where I think the comments crossed into the territory of 'islamophobic' https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/7djxqv/three_as.... I just
Most of those things you listed are dubious claims at best. However, if you promise you're in good faith, pointing out the crimes of one group disproportionately is a pretty bigoted thing to do. Breitbart had (maybe still does) a section called "Black Crime", in which they exclusively had stories about crimes involving African American people. Hitler's regime would put out news bulletins highlighting crimes committed by Jews. When you focus exclusively on one group and they bad things they're doing, it leaves the impression that these groups are disproportionately committing crimes, making them out to be worse than they really are.
I think it's murkier when one group commits a disproportionate amount of crime - accurate/percise coverage might look disproportionate even though it's actually representative.
I agree that pointing things out can be bigoted, but to the extent that politics addresses questions between friend and foe, it's natural that political expression is bigoted. Feminism is inherently bigoted to the extent that pointing out male dominance is important to the feminist perspective, but I don't think that feminists should be censored just because their discussions might offend people.
"I think it's murkier when one group commits a disproportionate amount of crime - accurate/percise coverage might look disproportionate even though it's actually representative."
You're gonna have to prove that's the case. In just about every study, it's been shown that, no, the crime rates are not disproportionately higher.
"Feminism is inherently bigoted"
No, it's not. Not in the slightest. Wanting equality only looks bigoted to those who benefit from the inequality.
>In just about every study, it's been shown that, no, the crime rates are not disproportionately higher.
Are we even talking about the same thing? There are absolutely groups that commit more crimes than others. Do you honestly need a citation for a claim like, "young men commit more crimes than elderly women?"
>No, it's not. Not in the slightest. Wanting equality only looks bigoted to those who benefit from the inequality.
Feminism isn't bigoted for wanting equality, Feminism is bigoted (but probably correctly so) for highlighting men as the reason there isn't equality. It gets back to my central claim that claims can be bigoted and true/valid/accurate.
IME, much of feminism focuses on patriarchy as a set of structures as the problem, not men, and that the patriarchy is neither exclusively supported by men and their actions nor exclusively harmful to women.
"Are we even talking about the same thing? There are absolutely groups that commit more crimes than others. Do you honestly need a citation for a claim like, "young men commit more crimes than elderly women?""
You should be able to cite something for that claim, yes. But you know we're not talking about those kinds of groups; we are talking about the ones that are highlighted on sites like Breitbart.
"Feminism is bigoted (but probably correctly so) for highlighting men as the reason there isn't equality."
Feminism doesn't highlight men. Feminism highlights power structures, many of which are put in place by certain men.
You're demanding that I defend claims I never made / claims you've accused me of making. I'm not going to do it and I'm not going to respond to your messages.
