• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

I also don't think the British National of Somali descent, potentially linked to Islamic extremism, if it does turn out to be true, killing a white conservative MP is going to help perceptions in this country either.

How does this play out compared to a "Britain First" supporter Thomas Mair killing Jo Cox?
 
I also don't think the British National of Somali descent, potentially linked to Islamic extremism, if it does turn out to be true, killing a white conservative MP is going to help perceptions in this country either.

How does this play out compared to a "Britain First" supporter Thomas Mair killing Jo Cox?
Largely similar tbh - makes the angry people more angry, assholes will use it for political gain, but over time the specific reason for the killing will be a footnote to the larger toxicity of the environment
 
I also don't think the British National of Somali descent, potentially linked to Islamic extremism, if it does turn out to be true, killing a white conservative MP is going to help perceptions in this country either.

How does this play out compared to a "Britain First" supporter Thomas Mair killing Jo Cox?
It's a weird one Jo Cox was murdered during the referendum and whilst not anywhere near a prominent remain voice was on that side of the debate. She was killed for her views by someone of opposing views.

This is supposedly different if linked to terrorism we aren't in the heat of debate about intervention in the Middle East. Amess was relatively moderate voted for the Iraq war but was very quickly critical of it.

We still know relatively nothing and have little knowledge about his motivations.

What does worry me is how quickly people were ready to jump on Rayner only for the initial assessment to suggest it had nothing to do with left wing rhetoric at all. I didn't mind Rayner comment so much someone in the party has to express the anger there currently is towards Johnson's government. However some more darker places underneath that really need to look at what they are saying and should of done for a long time. There's a reason so many people hated the Labour party under Corbyn.

This isn't to say the Tories aren't much better either who regularly show a complete intolerance to anyone who doesn't conform the status quo.

Will this make a difference to all that? Nope nobody seamed to take a step back after Jo Cox if anything people doubled down. If this has nothing do with mainstream rhetoric it's unlikely to be reassessed especially if it Islamic Authortarianism as we seam to never reflect after that either.


But a yeah a pox on authoritarianism always leads to this ****.
 
The same people hounding Rayner are the same ones applauding the papers calling judges traitors of the nation, and Cameron when he described Corbyn as "security threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating"

They really don't care about what happened they just want to point score
 
Judging by what is said about the perpetrator, I don't think Rayners comments factored into his actions at all. It doesn't sound like his motivations were in any way political but religious. It is another issue that we have ignored too long, Britain is the prime hotbed of home grown Islamic extremism in the west and it seems nobody knows how to deal with it or even how to talk about it. I do feel that as soon as anyone suggests we have an Islamic extremist issue, the accusations of racism come flying thick and fast.
 
as soon as anyone suggests we have an Islamic extremist issue, the accusations of racism come flying thick and fast.
The problem is just about anyone who raises it immediately falls into racist rhetoric. Things like Islam is incomaptable with British values amor kick them all out. Ignoring the vast majority of Muslims who live within UK perfectly happy.

Makes it a very hard topic to have a sensible discussion about it.
 
The problem is just about anyone who raises it immediately falls into racist rhetoric. Things like Islam is incomaptable with British values amor kick them all out. Ignoring the vast majority of Muslims who live within UK perfectly happy.

Makes it a very hard topic to have a sensible discussion about it.
That may be so but the fact remains that it is a problem. We can talk about the growing right wing extremism in the west but we are still a hotbed for Islamic extremism. Ultimately if we are going to have a healthy, functioning democracy we have got to be able to discuss all issues, no matter how uncomfortable or apparently anti-PC they may be. There will always be people who take it too far and then we can get into the discussion about the racism that does still exists too.
 
There's talking about Islamic extremism but also what to do and how to we tackle it. Who is it up to? Moderate Muslims to challenge extremism with their communities and online?

Are we getting to the stage where we are accepting of lone wolf attacks like this? If the killing was religiously motivated was this killing of Amess any different to the victims who died on London Bridge or the Bataclan in Paris or even the bow and arrow attack in Norway?
 
That may be so but the fact remains that it is a problem. We can talk about the growing right wing extremism in the west but we are still a hotbed for Islamic extremism. Ultimately if we are going to have a healthy, functioning democracy we have got to be able to discuss all issues, no matter how uncomfortable or apparently anti-PC they may be. There will always be people who take it too far and then we can get into the discussion about the racism that does still exists too.
The problem is that the term Islamist extremist associates extremist acts with Islam. Right wing extremist doesn't associate it with a specific group or ideology. 99% of Muslims condemn the acts of extremists and say they are not muslims if they commit these acts. However, just by saying Islamist you include all Muslims in the conversation, when in reality it has nothing to do with them. British people would be outraged if someone suggested that right wing extremists in this country represented all of Britain. Yes there needs to be conversations, but also understanding and this country is too quick to group extremists with ordinary people. It's why young muslim people feel they don't belong and end up being pushed into these groups.
 
There's talking about Islamic extremism but also what to do and how to we tackle it. Who is it up to? Moderate Muslims to challenge extremism with their communities and online?
It's pretty much the only answer that has any chance of working - for any form of extremism, it's up to the less extreme elements of the same community to guide people away from the extremes. Pretty much by definition, the "other" has no hope of preventing radicalisation against themselves; and asking them to is essentially victim blaming.

It's up to moderate Muslims to prevent the radicalisation of Muslims. Equally, it's up to Christians to police themselves against their more radical cults like Jehovas or Westboro Baptists (though neither have a particular history of attacks against others - just demonisation).
It's up to White folk to combat racism by whites against non-whites.
It's up to heterosexuals to identify and combat homophobia.
It's up to men to identify and combat misogyny.
It's up to the political right to provide education and guidance away from the proud boys and neo-nazis.
It's up to the cops to provide context and perspective on Blue Lives Matter or the anti-public radicalisation seen recently in the Met, or as common in US PDs.


The thorny issue, is "How", and the moderates really don't want to take responsibility for their less moderate "Us"s (How many of the menfolk here immediately and instinctively agree that it's up to men to tackle misogyny - it's not all men after all, and surely locker-room bater is fine. Do we really have to call out our friends for their language and jokes in a rugby team Whatsapp group? what's the world coming to? PC gone mad I tells you).
Women, on the other hand, only get the opportunity to address it once it's too late - the abuse has already happened, the Incel rabbit hole has been delved too deeply, the mysoginist is already feeling vindicated and vindictive, and feels openly able to molest someone on the train, and/or dismiss someone's opinion based on their gender.



There's a time and a place for the victim demographics to put their stories, and pleas for help - but by the time they are able to identify troublesome behaviour in individuals of the perpetrator group - it's too late.

Look at the vaccine "debate".
Who's in a better position to identify an anti-vaxxer before they start stabbing pharmacists? Someone in their own social media bubble? Or someone who first hears about them after the stabbing has taken place?
Who's voice are they more likely to listen to, and put a value on? A vaccine researcher? Or a less-rabid anti-vaxxer?
Who's in a better place to talk that person away from the brink? a "Them"? or an "Us"?
 
Last edited:
The problem is that the term Islamist extremist associates extremist acts with Islam. Right wing extremist doesn't associate it with a specific group or ideology. 99% of Muslims condemn the acts of extremists and say they are not muslims if they commit these acts. However, just by saying Islamist you include all Muslims in the conversation, when in reality it has nothing to do with them. British people would be outraged if someone suggested that right wing extremists in this country represented all of Britain. Yes there needs to be conversations, but also understanding and this country is too quick to group extremists with ordinary people. It's why young muslim people feel they don't belong and end up being pushed into these groups.
Nowhere does talking about Islamic extremism implicate all Muslims, is sort of the whole point of extremism, that it is the stuff that falls outside the norm. Saying right wing extremism doesn't implicate all right wingers, saying Christian extremism doesn't implicate all Christians so saying Islamic extremism doesn't implicate all Muslims.

It is associated with Islam in that the people profess to be Muslim. Also yes the problem is larger than we may want to admit. Create a bunch of cartoons looking fun at each if the world religions and various political ideologies, which do you think would have the most heated condemnation and threats? Even so called moderates make excuses for death threats.

Many moderate Muslims will obviously not condone violence but way way too many still try to excuse it and start shifting the blame, the whole "if you have criticized Islam this horrible things wouldn't have happened" defence. I've heard that from self professed moderates way too much. Hell one of the most prominent Islamic speakers online when asked about the tendency of Muslims to over react spent the majority of his answer attacking those that caused the reaction and making excuses for it. Nowhere in the response did he mention a need for Muslims to have a thicker skin and realise they can't dictate to others.
 
Last edited:
FB1qW8CXMAEaArR
 
Also we need to talk about what leads to radicalisation and extremism in the first place. I personally believe a lot of this is to fill the void or emptiness, which exists in everyone's lives. People with massive voids in their lives. not always through any fault of the own turn to vices to fill it, whether it be short term fixes.

The radicalisation and Extremism in religions, is another which can offer certain individuals with these voids purpose and meaning, which ultimately led to these senseless acts of killing We saw yesterday.

We, as a society, don't know how to help or deal with this because it is a void that exists in all of our lives which we are busy filling (in other ways) hence why moderates don't want to . It is the suffering and struggle we all face, in my opinion, because we all suffer, or struggle to some degree. Your suffering or struggle is not the same as mine and is not the same as anyone else's. We, as,Society, can't deal with or don't want to deal with the suffering of others in these positions who turn to extremism or don't know until we know how to deal with our own individual suffering.

I personally believe the only answer to that is to have compassion for our own Suffering/struggles in the first place, so we can have empathy and compassion for the suffering of others and then want to deal with the root Causes that ultimately lead to radicalisation in the first place. We are witnessing so much anger in society built up because in my opinion a lot of people are unhappy in their own lives. Happiness starts with being happy in ourselves.

We are all ultimately selfish beings but the better people feel within themselves in a good way (not in a narcissistic way - see Trump) the more willing they are going to help others.

But they don't teach that generally in society unless you're really lucky to have a wonderful upbringing who normalised it. Schools don't know how to teach it, the media, Governments and online and groups just spout and encourage individualism and materialism. People have generally turned away from religions because of its own failings and hypocrisies.

It is very sad what happened to Sir David Amess, and MP face to face meetings will probably end. We will mourn and offer our thoughts and condolences until next time an extremist kills some one. And the cycle will continue.
 
Last edited:
I like how everyone's framing it as Carrie Johnson breaking the rules....she lives with BoJo, therefore he broke them too
Presumably he'll meet the same fate as Matt Hancock then? No?
As you were then...
 
One rule to the government, another rule for the peasants.

I'm sure t'was ever thus; but it's never (in the modern era) been more obvious than the last few years.
But then, they do want to take us back to the Victorian era
 
I like how everyone's framing it as Carrie Johnson breaking the rules....she lives with BoJo, therefore he broke them too
Presumably he'll meet the same fate as Matt Hancock then? No?
As you were then...
Was speaking to a friend who was supposedly knows someone who knows Carrie (so almost the definition of hearsay this). But apparently she's quite the piece of work and always has been.

TBF to Boris this about his wife's friend staying and we don't know the internal politics of their marriage.

Of course its all ******** but she should rightly be in the spotlight more if it was her insistence as opposed to his.
 

Latest posts

Top