Tesseraction posted:When was this? Last year before the referendum, I'm not entirely certain when the offer was first made (sometime during Varoufakis tenure). Schäuble even offered them €50 billion in severance pay. It's actually pretty easy, if you quit the Eurozone, you can get a debt haircut. If you stay, you can not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Last year before the referendum, I'm not entirely certain when the offer was first made (sometime during Varoufakis tenure). Schäuble even offered them €50 billion in severance pay. It's actually pretty easy, if you quit the Eurozone, you can get a debt haircut. If you stay, you can not. So he'd offer them €50bn that they'd then just lose in the subsequent bankruptcy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 14:20
|
|
Tesseraction posted:So he'd offer them €50bn that they'd then just lose in the subsequent bankruptcy? No, that money was so that they don't have to starve after the default.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:No, that money was so that they don't have to starve after the default. Sounds like they should have taken it, but since it's Shitwolf I bet it was a poisoned chalice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:The entire argument that piece is making is that every Muslim, no matter how integrated into European society, no matter how opposed to violence, bears responsibility for attacks by radical jihadists. Are you saying that's not Islamophobic? If CH was singling out Islam in its criticism of religion I would call it Islamophobic, but the point of view people like that take is a more generalised "religion is the reason that people do bad things in the name of religion", so in the case of Islamic terrorism they blame Islam, if it's something of a different faith they will blame that. "Islamophobic" carries the implication that the same attitude is not taken towards other religions. If I were to call CH something it would be "wrong", and maybe "stupid".
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:It's anti-religious, but I guess it's only cool if you are against Christianity or Judaism because they rank high enough on the privilege scale. The equivalent scenario in Christianity would be every single Christian denomination apologizing for the Catholic Pedophile scandal. That isn't demanded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The equivalent scenario in Christianity would be every single Christian denomination apologizing for the Catholic Pedophile scandal. That isn't demanded. No it wouldn't, the equivalent scenario would be that Catholic communities apologize for systematically turning a blind eye to the Catholic Pedophile scandal, that is demanded. Where I live anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:No it wouldn't, the equivalent scenario would be that Catholic communities apologize for systematically turning a blind eye to the Catholic Pedophile scandal, that is demanded. No, because Shia are expected to apologize for ISIS as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:https://charliehebdo.fr/en/edito/how-did-we-end-up-here/ Ugh, this entire article is based on the belief in a conspiracy theory about Islam criticism being somehow suppressed by a PC-mad media. Like all conspiracy theories, it completely falls apart if you spend ten minutes researching the subject. Radical Islamic cults like ISIS are regularly portrayed as subhumans animals in western media. Misogynistic Arabic practices in Middle Eastern countries and in Europe are heavily criticised and integration problems with immigrants from Islamic countries are constantly brought up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, because Shia are expected to apologize for ISIS as well. According to who, exactly? If you go to France there lots of stereotypical 'Good ones' who tend to be Iranian and Lebanese. Even then, from my experiences in the Middle East thread and elsewhere it seems that Shia groups are often expected to apologize for Iran, Assad and Hezbollah. khwarezm fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Apr 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:According to who, exactly? If you go to France there lots of stereotypical 'Good ones' who tend to be Iranian and Lebanese. According to anyone who doesn't specify Sunnis (even though that's as dumb a standard as requiring "Protestants" to apologize for the Westboro Baptist Church).
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:If CH was singling out Islam in its criticism of religion I would call it Islamophobic, but the point of view people like that take is a more generalised "religion is the reason that people do bad things in the name of religion", so in the case of Islamic terrorism they blame Islam, if it's something of a different faith they will blame that. "Islamophobic" carries the implication that the same attitude is not taken towards other religions. khwarezm posted:According to who, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 15:54
|
|
computer parts posted:The equivalent scenario in Christianity would be every single Christian denomination apologizing for the Catholic Pedophile scandal. That isn't demanded. No, the article clearly only talks about very devout/radical Muslims (a Salafi academic, a baker who is devout enough to have a prayer bruise, a woman wearing a veil) while their point is that Western society is slowly becoming to accepting of radical religion under the veil of multiculturalism.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
If there were no people, crime rates woudl be zero.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 15:57
|
|
Friendly Humour posted:If there were no people, crime rates woudl be zero. That's not true, they would be undefined because you would have to divide by zero.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Then I would like to see some examples of CH's take on other religions and why you feel they're at all comparable to the sweeping argument made in that editorial charlie hebdo's general and staunch hostility to religion in general is very well known one could argue that they're singling out islam as particularly connected to terrorism, but it's not as though they're implicitly pro-christian or something
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
If there were no muslims, jihadist terrorists wouldn't be a problem. If only we had less peopel, we didn't have so many terror
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Then I would like to see some examples of CH's take on other religions and why you feel they're at all comparable to the sweeping argument made in that editorial Reminder that Chomskyan has been feeding his confirmation bias about the evilness of Charlie Hebdo since Charlie Hebdo got shot up at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:04
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Sam Harris's general and staunch hostility to religion in general is also very well known. Incidentally he's also an Islamophobe. It's quite possible to be critical of religion in general but to hold particularly prejudiced views towards Islam. I expect that is the category of Islamophobia Charlie Hebdo falls into
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Ugh, this entire article is based on the belief in a conspiracy theory about Islam criticism being somehow suppressed by a PC-mad media. Like all conspiracy theories, it completely falls apart if you spend ten minutes researching the subject. That's something French pundits and a significant part of our political class has clearly decided not to bother doing anymore. That opinion piece isn't surprising in this context, it's pretty fashionable to imply the state's been too tolerant of Muslims these days.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Sam Harris's general and staunch hostility to religion in general is also very well known. Incidentally he's also an Islamophobe. It's quite possible to be critical of religion in general but to hold particularly prejudiced views towards Islam. I expect that is the category of Islamophobia Charlie Hebdo falls into it is possible that things have changed since charb got murdered, but this at least did not use to be the case, c.f. http://www.lemonde.fr/actualite-medias/article/2015/04/15/le-livre-posthume-de-charb_4616005_3236.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
computer parts posted:According to anyone who doesn't specify Sunnis (even though that's as dumb a standard as requiring "Protestants" to apologize for the Westboro Baptist Church). Chomskyan posted:Then I would like to see some examples of CH's take on other religions and why you feel they're at all comparable to the sweeping argument made in that editorial Yeah Hebdo made it abundantly clear they were talking about every sect of Islam and every single Muslim, from Ahmadiyya to Twelver Shiism as opposed to the Maliki Sunni branch that predominates among most French Muslims and the communities that contribute most to radicalism. It is very important to reduce CH to nothing but a bunch of racist raving islamophobes among certain types of people, I wonder why?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:09
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:It is very important to reduce CH to nothing but a bunch of racist raving islamophobes among certain types of people, I wonder why? Because saying "well they're wrong" implies there is an actual issue to be talked about, when you could just say "well they're islamophobes, and also literal 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
I wonder if the people standing up for the Muslims in this instance are also supporting the Christian baker that would not produce a wedding cake for a gay wedding because of his believes?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
tbh CH does hold islam in open and cheerful contempt, so saying they're not "islamophobic" is perhaps not the best argument to push, but they at least used to be pro-laïcité rather than specifically anti-muslim, particularly that brand of anti-muslim as a cover for racism that is so popular among e.g. the Front National
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
they have specifically called out the FN for that poo poo previously, so it's not as though they're unaware of that phenomenon
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:tbh CH does hold islam in open and cheerful contempt, so saying they're not "islamophobic" is perhaps not the best argument to push, but they at least used to be pro-laïcité rather than specifically anti-muslim, particularly that brand of anti-muslim as a cover for racism that is so popular among e.g. the Front National The word "islamophobia" is used as shorthand for "hating muslims (because gently caress brown people)", not for "hating aspects of islamic religious organisations without having a problem with individual believers". The word would technically be better suited to the latter but it already ended up meaning the former.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Then I would like to see some examples of CH's take on other religions and why you feel they're at all comparable to the sweeping argument made in that editorial They are a publication that has run covers such as this (nws?) and are generally known to have a strong anti-religious stance in general. Are they saying that other religions are not as bad as Islam? I don't know, but I wouldn't believe so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The word "islamophobia" is used as shorthand for "hating muslims (because gently caress brown people)", not for "hating aspects of islamic religious organisations without having a problem with individual believers". The people who use 'Islamophobia' tend to be the latter decrying the former for making GBS threads up the discussion with their poorly-conceiled dogwhistle. You may well have legitimate concerns over the proliferation of Salafist and Wahabbist ideology, but the problem is you can find yourself sharing a stage with people who just want the 'muzzies' dead. Instead what tends to happen is people with little understanding of the situation just assume that the ubiquitous Muslim horde can be examined as a single entity and ignore that, just like how Judaism and Christianity went from being brutal and warmongering religions to relatively benign outside exceptions like the United States, Islam is perfectly capable of doing the same. Mostly the problem exists in the form of the House of Saud.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
YF-23 posted:They are a publication that has run covers such as this (nws?) and are generally known to have a strong anti-religious stance in general. Are they saying that other religions are not as bad as Islam? I don't know, but I wouldn't believe so. Other major religions in Europe have a rich and proud history of getting
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:33
|
|
Tesseraction posted:The people who use 'Islamophobia' tend to be the latter decrying the former for making GBS threads up the discussion with their poorly-conceiled dogwhistle. You may well have legitimate concerns over the proliferation of Salafist and Wahabbist ideology, but the problem is you can find yourself sharing a stage with people who just want the 'muzzies' dead. Instead what tends to happen is people with little understanding of the situation just assume that the ubiquitous Muslim horde can be examined as a single entity and ignore that, just like how Judaism and Christianity went from being brutal and warmongering religions to relatively benign outside exceptions like the United States, Islam is perfectly capable of doing the same. Mostly the problem exists in the form of the House of Saud. Well, I don't think Judaism has changed all that much, as it never was brutal and warmongering outside of "leave us alone or else JHWH is going to make you regret loving with us". They are also the only Abrahamic religions that does not have a mission to proselytize. As for Christianity, it was created as a religion of peaceful resistance against oppression and was perverted by people who wanted to use it for brutality and warmongering, while Islam was created by an Arabic warlord who used it to organize his warmongering and brutality. That does not mean that the House of Saud and the Muslim Brotherhood are not to blame for the current mess, but there is a clear difference between those 3 religions.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Well, I don't think Judaism has changed all that much, as it never was brutal and warmongering outside of "leave us alone or else JHWH is going to make you regret loving with us". Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Well, I don't think Judaism has changed all that much, as it never was brutal and warmongering outside of "leave us alone or else JHWH is going to make you regret loving with us". They are also the only Abrahamic religions that does not have a mission to proselytize. Christianity was created as an apocalyptic religion reveling in the thought that millions of people would be tortured and annihilated, but thankfully the supernatural would do all the dirty work. The pacifistic elements came in after it became apparent there wasn't going to be a figure coming in clouds to burn all the Romans alive anytime soon. Islam was created by a merchant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Well, I don't think Judaism has changed all that much, as it never was brutal and warmongering outside of "leave us alone or else JHWH is going to make you regret loving with us". what.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Well, I don't think Judaism has changed all that much, as it never was brutal and warmongering outside of "leave us alone or else JHWH is going to make you regret loving with us". They are also the only Abrahamic religions that does not have a mission to proselytize. No, it wasn't 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:46
|
|
computer parts posted:Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Well, they were loving (literally) with the Israelits to seduce them to worship Baal-Peor. JHWH couldn't let that just slip.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Well, they were loving (literally) with the Israelits to seduce them to worship Baal-Peor. JHWH couldn't let that just slip. And the Caliphate just existed to save those pagans from the darkness of hell. YHWH was giving them a blessing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:Well, I don't think Judaism has changed all that much, as it never was brutal and warmongering outside of "leave us alone or else JHWH is going to make you regret loving with us". Better hope your daughter has never ridden a bike then, because Deuteronomy 22:21-22 says if there's no blood on the sheets she should be stoned to death by the village men. Check out 22:23-24 too, which says if an engaged virgin is raped in the city she must be stoned to death too, because she clearly wasn't trying hard enough to get away and therefore she enjoys it. As to your proselytising, perhaps, but it also says in Deuteronomy 13:1-11 that apostasy should be punished by stoning. New Testament wise you're right, it teaches kinder things, but 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 makes sure that women know their place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Better hope your daughter has never ridden a bike then, because Deuteronomy 22:21-22 says if there's no blood on the sheets she should be stoned to death by the village men. Psalm 137:8-9 "O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, how blessed will be the one who repays you with the recompense with which you have repaid us. How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rocks."
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:21 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Better hope your daughter has never ridden a bike then, because Deuteronomy 22:21-22 says if there's no blood on the sheets she should be stoned to death by the village men. No you see these are not core parts of the religion and don't count, because my essentialism is better than your essentialism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 16:54
|
|