A Recent "Hate Speech" Mod - Here's Why It Isn't

Now, of course I expected this message to have problems within 24 hours of its posting. I wanted to make my point and dangle some bait here, since there's a teachable moment to be had. One needs to push for change and rattle the cage a bit to bring it about.

Today's subject involves criticism of a religion, a great taboo over at gamefaqs since it wasn't an anti-Christian message. From 261: "How Much Do Americans 'Disapprove' Of Arab-Americans & Muslim-Americans?" The implication in the topic being that all Americans are wrong and bad to not auto-approve of a religion many of them don't happen to believe in. This is an acceptable generalization. As usual, the criticism cannot go both ways. Let's have a look.

There's nothing wrong with being an Arab-American. One's skin color or country of origin is unimportant; what someone believes in means everything. Any bad system deserves criticism.

Why do I not agree with Islam? Christians understand that Jesus was the ultimate revelation of God on this earth and the power of his love. He warned of false prophets (e.g. Mohammed, Joseph Smith) who would divide and lead people astray. Mohammed was a particularly bloody warlord whose name is still uttered by plenty of bloody warlords today. A big division among the sects of Islam in the present day involves conflict over which human being was the heir of Mohammed's regime. They do not answer to God, but have diverted their attention from him to pick a man to follow instead.

The founder of Islam was a violent warlord and this is reflected in its ideology, as well as its history. The Crusades were not fought because Christian white people were mean. They started as a defense because Muslims wanted to place Europe (and the known world) in bondage to their ideology and demands. This desire, as well as the violence, continues to this day with efforts to re-establish a caliphate and forcibly convert or kill those who will not bow to Mohammed. They murder in Nigeria. They murder in the Middle East. They murder in Israel. They murder in Europe if someone draws a picture of their violent warlord. Recently there was murder in broad daylight on the streets of London. They are the violent aggressor in virtually every conflict across the world that they are involved in. They killed thousands of our men and women on September 11, an attack that originated from a desire to hit financial centers and kill as many Jews as possible. When news of the tragedy reached Palestine, there was dancing in the streets.

I am tired of hearing about "moderates." The current leader of Iran was said to be "moderate" when he continues to pursue nuclear weaponry and a coming war to wipe Israel off the map, just like his predecessors who were also said to be "moderate" but had the same goals. Fatah is said to be "moderate" and yet it teams up with Hamas and airs television spots that call for suicide bombings and jihad. When one's ideology is centered around a brutal tyrant and his edicts, it's difficult to be a moderate.

www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/07/closing-arguments-begin-new-york-beheading-murder-trial/

The following event happened in my area while I was at college. Here is a "moderate" who was upset that people profiled Muslims after 9/11, so he started a TV station with his wife to counter stereotypes. He is now in jail because a few years later, he murdered his wife, stabbing her over 40 times, beheading her in cold blood.

Honor killings, Sharia law, suicide bombings, holy war, death to those who convert to other religions - just a selection of actions that Islam is known for. So instead of wagging our fingers at Americans in general for their intolerance and mean words and disapproval of Muslim-Americans, maybe we should be taking an honest look at why they disapprove of Islam and the violent practices/history behind it.

How about taking a guess at what followed?

a) 261 users continued discussion to address my points, agree, disagree, criticize, or whatever.

b) 261 users zeroed in on an account they hate and ran to mods, eager to censor as if they were running an Islamic theocracy themselves, where no debate is allowed, and didn't bother to respond to any of the points.

Social justice warriors of our day spend a lot of time talking about "hate speech" (e.g. anyone who disagrees with them), but I think we should instead be looking at a phenomenon known as hate censorship. The idea that no matter what facts you use, if those facts offend a single person that makes you an evil person who should be hated on and silenced. Gamefaqs mods have successfully enabled a cesspool of such behavior on the site.

Gamefaqs mods really hate it when you define a group by what what its definition is. It's as if Webster's dictionary is their worst enemy. Because if we categorize people into the categories they have placed themselves in, that's just really, really mean of you. If you criticize a political party, that's a stereotypical generalization. Same if you criticize pedophiles (because 'not all pedophiles are into children' - ponder that one). Say goodbye to your account if you oppose any group of people over anything, unless you're rich, straight, Christian, white or male. Those generalizations are OK because you're fighting da power.

Now, I could run down through what I said and we could agree on the facts - Jesus did say there would be false prophets, Mohammed engaged in violence and waged war, majorities or significant minorities of Muslims surveyed believe in enforcing Sharia law, honor killings, Islamist political parties, and the death of any Muslim who converts to another religion. This would be besides the point though, I'm not going to be on the receiving end of an Inquisition. I don't have to justify my worthiness to hold an opinion to them, mods don't have to agree with what I say, but that doesn't mean they must mod it. The problem here was that someone on their end was not an adult, decided not to allow debate, because regardless of whether or not these were facts, the facts offended someone. And so the Politics board becomes a "this is what you must think" board rather than a "what do you think?" forum. We are to agree with the topic creator that Americans are foolish and cannot have any serious criticism of Islam, ignorant cowboys that we are.

If I had to predict the responses: those who don't immediately say "Good! You mods dun censored that bigot fer havin' different views'n mine!" will instead say something like, "you can criticize Islam on gamefaqs" followed by a ton of unstated asterisks. You can do that, just not the way I did. I get that a lot on the gay marriage issue. You can say you oppose gay marriage in theory, it's just that you will never be allowed to explain why because then we'll mod you for it.

My comments were unflattering sure, but modworthy? I laid out the case of the other side, along with why I disagree with Muslims. Gamefaqs mods can't exactly make you be one, and logically anyone who is not a Muslim would have a reason or criticism as to why they aren't. But noting this could hurt someone's feelings. Not potentially any Muslim's, mind you, who might have actually tried to make their case in response to my criticism. I'm talking about the feelings of leftists on the board, who don't feel good about themselves unless they censor someone they don't like, then pat themselves on the back over how "tolerant" they are and how they made a big difference.

Worth noting: my recommendation at the end was to keep these concerns and criticisms of Islam in mind before rushing to declare all those Americans are too judgmental. I do not believe that Muslim-Americans should be hated on. I did not tell anyone to do anything against them. I simply gave personal and broader reasons as to why critics of an ideology think it's bad. But because my answer was more complicated than the liberal argument that "'Mericans-slash-'Publicans-slash-righties are eeeevil people," it gets punished.

If you aren't allowed to say an ideology is wrong, you aren't allowed to say much of anything.  How can you have a true political discussion?

As usual, there's a companion topic on the board that illustrates a double standard and shows what you can get away with if you're making an argument from the other side of the aisle:

"Should the US ban Mosques that preach radical Islam?"

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/261-politics/69815035

My answer to that is no, we should accept all sorts of speech because one's political opinions are harmless and only "dangerous" to people of an authoritarian bend who want to keep their opponents from making their case. But what do I know, I'm just a dangerous account who shouldn't be allowed to make his case.

...

For those of you who actually know what real intolerance looks like, please do take a look at this topic and offer some support:

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/584997-private-eye/52383991