You got upset because I stated facts. You banned me because I stated uncomfortable, but well-documented truths about the behavior of muslims.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/17tLFiSLjz/x/c/4ZCaGcS8Trj
Muslims aren't a "race". Nor are they an ethnic identity; they're a cartel of politically-connected international criminals that commit theft, drug trafficking, slave trading, terrorism and murder because their religious teachings glorifies the exploitation of "heathens". It's brazen to the point local government authorities have PSAs warning people not to go to muslim countries "because they were offered a high-paying job" because those muslims do indeed seize people's passports, then force their victims into indentured servitude.
https://bpr.studentorg.berkeley.edu/2020/06/30/modern-day-indentured-servitude/
Your moral failing is that you refuse to acknowledge reality.
Your criticism of Islam has to focus on Islam, rather than Muslims particularly, especially how you worded it as an inherent moral failing among Muslims, rather than claims of over-representation.
Has to? HAS TO? Hahahahahahaha, I'll judge muslims by the content of their character.
After all, the invasive, criminal and exploitative behavior of muslims aligns with the instructions of their warmongering cult-leader. They don't see it as a 'moral failing'.
Thats how they have always been.
They continue to carry out their criminal, subversive and exploitative activities even in the modern day, with the blessing of their state powers and their religion.
And I can prove everything I said.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-09-02-0315
"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."
It's in their 'holy book' and the laws of their religion - which muslims have always used to justify what they do. Stating such is not an 'identity attack'.
https://web.archive.org/web/20110725220038/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm
This banditry, invasion, enslavement and even mass murder is what the muslims have been doing in the middle east - first to any other native peoples in the region, then outwards to other vulnerable peoples and nations over the centuries. It is part of their religion. And that has been a staple of their existence since then, and is - even now.
https://mondediplo.com/1998/04/02africa
https://archive.org/details/spain-history-volume-1/page/251/mode/1up
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9772719/
https://www.icct.nl/publication/isis-and-their-use-slavery
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/sudan-politics-darfur/
https://www.state.gov/reports/2023-trafficking-in-persons-report/somalia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huddersfield_grooming_gang
https://www.cfr.org/article/ethnic-cleansing-happening-nagorno-karabakh-how-can-world-respond
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxuwDWbYsMI
And as it has been said before, the sole purpose of these vile actions muslims commit has always been to propagate their violent religion, by either force, blackmail or simply ethnic cleansing if their victims refuse to submit.
Secondly, muslims are not above using narcotics, blackmail and sex trafficking to break their targets and poison the communities they infest, either. Then, and even now.
https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/accrington-soldier-line-drug-gang-24041441
https://www.frontpagemag.com/first-muslim-senator-keeps-california-a-sexual-abuse-sanctuary-state/
https://www.godreports.com/2015/02/uk-hundreds-of-more-victims-in-muslim-rape-case/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telford_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal
They're not above destroying their own children when it comes to sating their perverse lusts either. They don't even care to maintain the next generation in the nations they have conquered either.
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/longform/2022/8/22/sex-trafficking-in-iraq
https://www.journeyman.tv/film/7677
After all, their religion mandates the conquest and enslavement from those they deem 'unbelievers'. This world, and the consequences of their vile actions and depraved ways does not matter to them - their religion has blinded them with lurid tales of an 'afterlife' that pander to their every perverse whim.
The fact that you had to label these facts I spoke of as 'claims' makes you no better than those criminals. You know what that makes you? At best, an ignorant idiot too frightened of offending those savage, slave-dependent mass murderers. At worst, an islamic apologist actively covering up their crimes because deceiving 'unbelievers' is part of your wretched religion.
Muslims and their pet apologists use every iota of their connections and position to label those facts I stated as "identity attacks", "claims" or "islamophobia" or whatever the fuck buzzword you lot cling on to silence all criticism of your so-called religion.
Which brings me to my second point: You tried to divert attention from the behavior of muslims by demanding that I criticize their so-called religion. You demanded that I take part in the lie of seperating islam from the muslims when their own "religious" doctrines specifically exhorts upon them to exploit, extort, enslave and exterminate anyone they deem 'infidels', which they have been doing for centuries.
To your duplicitous demand to "focus my criticism of islam rather than muslims" I say: I don't negotiate with terrorists.
I will never obey your decree to "taqqiya"-fy my criticism of muslims and their vile crimes. I will never take part in the insidious lie of seperating islam from the muslims because the muslims are following their religion, and see no problem with exploiting, enslaving and then exterminating anyone who does not submit to them.
Because without the criticism of muslims and their horrific actions, the criticism of islam simply allows muslim apologists to go "BUT THATS NOT TRUE COMMUNI-uh ISLAM!" and nothing changes. Criticizing the actions of muslims, analyzing their behaviors in enabling slave trading and exploitation of nations at the behest of their "religious" leaders, and the steps that must be taken to ending the global terror of islamic invasion is made clear.
PS: Also, stop using chatGPT. I didn't say anything about "overrepresentation".
PSS: If you're that determined to ban all criticism of your mohammedan leash-holders, then make it a clear law. At least then people will know who truly owns you.
Sigh.
When I say "have to" I mean "have to in order to be in compliance of Rule 16". It's not an order, I'm just explaining to you what the rule is because I like to not hide what the rule means.
See, that's actually a criticism of the religion, that's why that's okay.
No, I just want you to be clear about the distinction. The reason a Muslim behaves in a morally inferior way is from the institution of the religion, and once outside of that religion, their behavior may return to normal.
I don't use chatGPT (I don't know how). I just sound like this.
So, what you're saying is that you can't claim I'm JIDF now? Hmmmm Intriguing offer, but I'll have to pass. You can criticize Islam all you want.
Get rid of rule 16.
But don’t you see? The arbitrary rules he put in place MUST be enforced!! He’s powerless against the bastard who established them. We all know that if DoM had his way, it would be a totally free speech place, but unfortunately his hands are tied.
Cries out in pain as he bans you
No.
The rule does not serve this community's interests.
I think it absolutely does.
Then appoint someone else to be the head mod and resign.
You and like a handful of faggots are the only ones who want it. You're a subversive parasite.
You would make a rule banning anti-white hate speech on day 1.
And I refuse, because to do so would be simply playing into the game the muslim apologists have set up, as I have explained earlier.
See, not an 'identity attack'.
Incorrect. The reason muslims behave like that is because not just their religion - but also their society and cultural norms are built as that of an invading army. They even dehumanize and enslave their own children because they're replaceable with fresh slaves. They are convinced of the superiority of their doctrine, and in the belief that they are to rule over the world. Their greed, laziness and perverse urges binds them to constantly seek new slaves.
The few who dare break out of the islamic plantation are marked as 'apostates' and islamic law specifically states the death penalty for these people.
The gimmiegrants are not defectors from islam - but invaders that refuse to integrate with their host countries, then rot the unfortunate nation's society with a combination of crime, drug and sex trafficking, that rapidly shifts up to regulatory capture in order to enslave - then slowly destroy their host cultures.
If that's the case, stop adding random words like you did with "overrepresentation" and acting like I said anything about that.
I don't really care what you are, but if you cover up the atrocities committed by invading muslims - that makes you an enemy.
And I will criticize muslims too.
Right, based on cultural and societal doctrines. That's why none of this is a rule violation.
Muslims are people who adhere to Islam. They cannot be outside of their religion or they stop being Muslims.
If you doubt that - what is the Muslim religion called?
Are you mixing up Arabs and Muslims?
What moron downvoted this? It's an absolute tautology that Dom abused. "once outside of that religion, their behavior may return to normal" Yes then they aren't Muslims so the defense doesn't make sense.
Most people simply aren't aware of just how evil islam truly is. They tend to mark any criticism of it as 'sperging' and tune it out.
It's a twisted version of a self-preservation instinct.
No, and Arab would be more of a clear violation.
I agree that Muslims are not a race. The weird part is that there is a racialization of Muslims that make the attacks on them an identity attack. Where you could have lesser devout forms of Muslims reject certain aspects of Islam, and this isn't much of an issue.
Frankly, it's a similar problem with jews. Jews aren't a race; but most of the rule violating attacks on them treat them as a race.
Anything that attacks their behaviour would be an attack on their religion (which prescribes how they should act). That's what I mostly see.
Are people attacking their physical traights? If not, what consitutes an attack on race, rather than religion.
The specification of the speaker.
A moderate is at best, labeled an apostate by their religious peers, or at worst, a liar who puts on a facade of goodwill to groom their victims into complacency.
Or, additionally, a Useful Idiot.
I've literally had a muslim directly tell me that Islam has never been spread by war. It's kind of like living in a Leftist buble.
Okay, in the future: When I talk about Muslims, I talk about religeous Muslims, who follow Islam and all it entails.
I am able to differentiate them and Turks, Syrians, Iranians and other Arabs who are not Muslim. Don't push your wrong logic on other people.
Btw every follower of Islam will also say those people who don't follow Islam are not Muslims. So even they would agree with me.
This is part of an interesting point, because what we call "Jihadis" is what Saudi Arabians call "Takfirists". Basically, they kill Muslims by 'Takfiring" them and declaring them to be non-Muslims, and then kill them. It's why so many Islamic Terrorist attacks kill Muslims while Islam explicitly bans killing Muslims.
But yes, your first sentence is fine.
Religion, culture, and race were all so intertwined before the Age of Exploration that it hardly mattered.
You had movement, but, like, for any given point on the map you could pretty much tell what race, religion, and culture a person was going to be from. All this stuff about nature vs nurture is interesting, but it's only relevant recently.
That's because 'race' is a complete misnomer, and it was religion, culture, and ethnicity.
Race, in the way it is used in the American sense, is a purely abstract concept that pretends to have biological legitimacy. Race, even as used by Enoch Powell, wasn't used to describe everyone of a certain skin color, but was more nuanced than that. This is why the definition of "white" people's changed as much as it did. It didn't literally mean everyone from anywhere that fell along a certain color swatch. When he used it, it mostly meant British.
Biological race makes some sense as a form of human stratification; but is mostly disconnected from culture and religion.
Hard disagree on that last point. Biology has a heavy influence on behavior, and culture and behavior are pretty closely connected.
The issue is which biology. The biology of human stratification has very little, and has literally nothing to do with culture. Cultural variances are more likely to be influenced by geography than by race. Individual behavior is more directly influenced by parenting than by race or geography.
Race, in it's abstract form, is utterly worthless in determining culture and behavior.
Race, in it's biological form, is outweighed by other factors.
I think where biological race makes sense is at the grossest level: Caucasoid, Negroid, Australoid, and Mongoloid we should be able to distinguish.
You can't, though. That's part of the problem. Those definitions don't actually well define genetic human strata. That's why anyone talking about biological race resorts to phenotypes.
Hell, Caucasoid has never really made sense to apply that term to western Europeans.