Police: please don’t sell milkshakes to anti-fascists

[Mecha82]

To be honest situation here in Finland is different because our populistic party that claims to be all about nationalism has so far been using it just to get votes and haven't been even trying to implement they promises because all they care about is that they keep getting elected so that they can keep they nice salaries and benefits. In other words so far they have been harmless but there is always risk that some one rises among them that actually believes to that rhetoric and wants to make it happen regardless how possible it is or is it even legal.

[Yukaphile]

Oh wow, you're a native Finlander. That's interesting.

I'm a Minnesotan.

[Darth Wedgius]

Oy vey. Most Christians in the UK do not want homosexuality outlawed. Most Muslims do. You can point toward some Christians all you want, but it doesn't matter. Most Christians in the UK are fine with having homosexuals as neighbors, by quite a margin. If you want to say it's a fundamentalist religion problem, that just means more British Muslims are religious fundamentalists. It doesn't really change anything about the desires of British Muslims. Tap dancing around the bottom line won't change the bottom line.

And, please pay attention as I repeat myself. My point of mentioning that 40% of Muslims in the UK wanting to enforce some of Sharia law is not that some parts of Sharia law is awful, the point is that 40% of Muslims in the UK want to change the law to better suit themselves. That's as simple as I can make it for you.

But enjoy the study.

Let's break down the problem. The argument you're making goes more or less thusly:

1. Muslim immigrants are substantially out of sync with UK values
2. Said immigrants seek to replace extant law with laws drafted by them
3. Said changes will fundamentally undermine the rights of UK citizens
4. Therefor it is an acceptable step to remove and/or exclude Muslims from the UK.
5. Therefor Nigel Farage's specific singling out of Muslims as a danger is not a fascistic form of nationalism.

Now, I'm not willing to debate you about the last two conclusions anymore. Removing or excluding people based on a characteristic like national, ethnic, and religious background is a human rights violation, full stop, and someone arguing in favor of human rights violations in defense of nationalism is a form of fascism. You can tell me it's rhetoric if you want, but it's had a measurable real-world impact just as rhetoric, and being an American, wherein the current administration has established concentration camps for refugees, extra SPECIAL ones for the gay and disabled ones, and has recently announced plans to make it legal for Christians to let trans people die in hospitals, I'm going to call you not merely wrong but willfully disingenuous if you want to argue that Farage would not attempt to implement his rhetoric if he achieved office.

That said, you're essentially arguing an end-justify-the-means case to hit those two conclusions: the human rights violations that would occur without intervention in Muslim immigration outweigh those done to Muslim immigrants, and therefor those extraordinary steps are required for this specific, laser focused circumstance.

So let's talk about that.

A heightened sense of religious devotion manifests in a clear social
conservatism on some issues. This was reflected, for example, in high levels
of support for gender segregated education (40% supported this proposal,
as compared to just 11% of the general population), as well as ‘traditional’
religious clothing within schools (44% supported the idea that schools should
be able to insist on the hijab or niqab).

So let me ask: does the UK still have gender-segregated private schools and school uniforms? If not, how recently has that changed? Because this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about: I heartily agree those are bad things. But if the existing law already allows for them in anglo-founded institutions, then Muslim communities insisting upon them are not some horrible undermining of UK values, it's asserting that they deserve equal rights. The solution isn't to exclude Muslims from the UK, prevent their access to craft and influence law, or to discriminate against their specific reasons for religious dress codes and gender separation but not those of other religions, but to abolish those institutions altogether.

There are relatively large levels of support among British Muslims for the
implementation of elements of Sharia law; however, the nature of that support
is quite ‘soft’. Whilst a plurality of people expressed a preference for such
measures ‘in the abstract’, they were far less forthcoming in supporting them
‘in reality’. (Only 4% of those surveyed said that they used Sharia banking, for
instance, and 55% said that they would not prefer to use this option). It should
also be noted that younger Muslims
were relatively less likely than their
older counterparts to endorse Sharia.

Hm. This looks suspiciously similar to that thing I said, about Sharia being a broad topic with many facets. In particular, I want to draw attention their specific citation here. A quick googling tells me this:

"Islamic banking, also known as non-interest banking, is a system based on the principles of Islamic or Sharia law and guided by Islamic economics. Islamic banks make a profit through equity participation which requires a borrower to give the bank a share in their profits rather than paying interest."

Now, that's very different from how western banks operate, yes. But it's not inherently unethical, if well regulated. I don't see any reason that the law can't recognize (and therefor regulate) this form of banking in addition to existing financial structures. A support of "sharia law" is not necessarily a matter of replacing existing law, but of recognizing and therefor providing legal recourse for Muslim customs.
There's a further implication in the study's conclusion there, but let's see if the data backs me up here.

Moreover, when results are broken down it is notable that younger
respondents were relatively less likely to favour the provisions of Sharia
law. Only 35% of those aged 18–24 expressed support for such measures (and
only 11% expressed ‘strong support’ as compared to an overall proportion of
16%); conversely amongst the two oldest age cohorts (those 55 years old and
above) that figure rose to 48–49% (and
17–19% strong support).

Well what a not-surprise. It turns out that younger Muslims, who overwhelmingly were born in the UK, have far less use for traditions of another culture, whilst their older, more conservative counterparts do want to see aspects integrated into law.
Otherwise known as what all immigration patterns look like. There is no exceptional, special characteristic of Muslims that make them less likely to integrate or respect the culture and laws of their new home. Just normal generational shifts over time.
The case for ends justifying the means is pretty goddamned weak here.

Again, therefore, it is possible to identify a gap between an issue as seen in
the abstract and the way it is viewed at a more tangible, practical level. ‘Sharia
law’ as a concept considered in general terms, is one that many Muslims are not
willing to reject, and significant numbers state a ‘Panglossian’ preference for it: it
is something that they might like in the best of all possible worlds. However, in
their day-to-day lives, this is not an issue that drives many Muslims in the UK. The
practical problems that surround Sharia ensure that many show little interest in
those Sharia-compliant measures that do exist. In this context, expressing support
for Sharia is a way of saying something about one’s identity and religion, rather
than voicing a commitment to a specific policy and legal objective

Oh look, that thing I said!
I mean there's an entire segment about "extremism" that includes in the middle

Yet, even accounting for this, when put alongside the previous set of results,
it seems clear that a significant proportion of Britain’s Muslim population do
not consider extremism to be a significant issue. Again, there are different ways
to read this: either, they simply do not encounter ‘extremist’ views; or, when
they do, they do not recognise such extremism for what it is. The vagueness
of the term – and the enduring difficulties that surround efforts to produce a
definition – are of critical importance here. Successive governments have sought
to initiate a debate about the nature of both mainstream ‘British values’ on the
one hand, and unacceptable ‘extremism’ on the other. To date, there has been
little consensus on either front. Against this backdrop, it is perhaps unsurprising
that many within Muslim communities are unsure about what constitutes
‘extremism’. Equally, however, it is worth at least considering whether there is
an element of denial here?

Even the most troubling result is hard enough to interpret that it's not responsible to draw any clear conclusions.

Nothing in here is out of line with what you'd expect from a somewhat conservative community. Nothing suggest some magical, disproportionate ability to outvote anglo citizens and curtail their rights, nor a desire to do so. Indeed every problem here is right in line with all forms of conservative thought.

That thing I said.

Since you don't want to argue those last two points, I'll just state that you're wrong. Fascism has not always focused on ethnicity, though the most famous example was. Fascism has an authoritarian component missing from what the right is pushing, and present on the left. You can try to sell your own bullshit definition for fascism, but I don't have to buy it.

Also, I never said anything about removing or excluding Muslims from the UK. I said that immigration of Muslims should be controlled so they assimilate into the dominant culture, rather than letting the floodgates go wide open for them to flee their own countries into the UK. Maybe if you'd read what I wrote instead of what you wanted me to have written, you'd have understood that.

Does the UK still have gender-separated schools? Sure. And that's a non-sequitur. You keep addressing issues I haven't brought up. You didn't read up on straw-manning, did you? It's a shame, because you typed a lot without actually changing anything. I spoke of how many Muslims want to make homosexuality illegal, and you keep pointing toward other things. Feel free to talk about other things, but I'll just keep bringing up how many Muslims in the UK want to make homosexuality illegal.

On the subject of Sharia law, you may be willing to assume that they are thinking what you hope they are thinking, but I'm going to assume they actually mean what they say.

As far as extremism goes, 26% said they didn't believe it existed. Tell me that makes sense. More of them think the Jews were behind 9/11 than Al Qaeda.

[Yukaphile]

Looking at this kind of debate always makes me laugh, and reminds me of all the times the GOP accused Obama of being a secret Muslim trying to implement Sharia Law, terrifying their ignorant hard right fringe base to get them to the polls. When in truth, if Obama wanted to implement something similar to Sharia Law, he'd be a Republican. And the claims he was gonna amend the Constitution to stay in office longer, oh yeah, that was totally a false claim. The same way Jade Helm was. While Trump, meanwhile, floats the idea of staying in office longer, and it's deeply worrisome, because I don't see this Republican-led Congress vetoing that. And we know why he'd do it. In order to avoid being charged in New York for his illicit business dealings. SMH

[Darth Wedgius]

Looking at this kind of debate always makes me laugh, and reminds me of all the times the GOP accused Obama of being a secret Muslim trying to implement Sharia Law, terrifying their ignorant hard right fringe base to get them to the polls. When in truth, if Obama wanted to implement something similar to Sharia Law, he'd be a Republican. And the claims he was gonna amend the Constitution to stay in office longer, oh yeah, that was totally a false claim. The same way Jade Helm was. While Trump, meanwhile, floats the idea of staying in office longer, and it's deeply worrisome, because I don't see this Republican-led Congress vetoing that. And we know why he'd do it. In order to avoid being charged in New York for his illicit business dealings. SMH

You are treating your assumptions as givens. Honestly, Yukaphile, I should make a macro for this.

[Yukaphile]

Where am I making assumptions? That is basically the hard religious right in a nutshell. Not the moderates. Like the DNC, the GOP has many wings. And this is basically what it boils down to. You can see it in the way they talk. Unless you wanna say not even everyone among this hard and fanatical minority (which IS an extreme minority) is that way, in which case, congratulations. That goes without saying. I'm also the same guy who thinks 80% to 90% of Trump voters aren't satan. That they get a bad rep in the media. Despite the media really failing to inform them properly.

[Yukaphile]

Why do I "make assumptions," as you call it? Still sticking to the beliefs I was raised to while at the same time, I don't trust ANYTHING that comes from an official source that is socio-political. Statistics, polls, nothing. You can't trust that after 2016, in a post-modern world, no matter which side is doing it. That's too easy to fake or spin to push an agenda.

[Darth Wedgius]

Where am I making assumptions? That is basically the hard religious right in a nutshell. Not the moderates. Like the DNC, the GOP has many wings. And this is basically what it boils down to. You can see it in the way they talk. Unless you wanna say not even everyone among this hard and fanatical minority (which IS an extreme minority) is that way, in which case, congratulations. That goes without saying. I'm also the same guy who thinks 80% to 90% of Trump voters aren't satan. That they get a bad rep in the media. Despite the media really failing to inform them properly.

Your assumptions here:

While Trump, meanwhile, floats the idea of staying in office longer, and it's deeply worrisome, because I don't see this Republican-led Congress vetoing that. And we know why he'd do it. In order to avoid being charged in New York for his illicit business dealings.

Ignoring the inaccuracy about what a veto is (congress doesn't veto, and Trump going for three terms would be unconstitutional), you're assuming Trump's reasons for something you're assuming he'd do. There are assumptions involved there.

[Yukaphile]

I think if he could avoid facing charges in New York, he would. I think it's pretty much a given once he leaves office, he's gonna get charged by New York for illegal business dealings. The White House protects him because a sitting president cannot be indicted. Also, I tie this back to the GOP accusing Obama of that very thing. I think it's based on a psychological condition called "projection." They're accusing the other side of acting in a way they are secretly thinking about.

[CmdrKing]

Also, I never said anything about removing or excluding Muslims from the UK. I said that immigration of Muslims should be controlled so they assimilate into the dominant culture, rather than letting the floodgates go wide open for them to flee their own countries into the UK. Maybe if you'd read what I wrote instead of what you wanted me to have written, you'd have understood that.

No, I'm saying you're making a distinction without a difference. currently a bit less than 3 million muslims live in the UK, to a total population of around 66 million. there were about 30,000 applications for asylum in 2018. Even if 100% were Muslim, increasing the population by 1% a year as some sort of existential threat is... a take. Even if you doubled or tripled or quadrupled that number and all Muslims voted as a single voting block and strategically settled to maximize their voting power, it would take a generation to accomplish. Lotta integrating happens in a generation.

Honestly being afraid of that, the logical leaps required to assume that is a likely outcome, are pretty outlandish to me. You can see where I might suspect the "controlled immigration" target of someone who believed all that would actually be zero.

Does the UK still have gender-separated schools? Sure. And that's a non-sequitur. You keep addressing issues I haven't brought up. You didn't read up on straw-manning, did you? It's a shame, because you typed a lot without actually changing anything. I spoke of how many Muslims want to make homosexuality illegal, and you keep pointing toward other things. Feel free to talk about other things, but I'll just keep bringing up how many Muslims in the UK want to make homosexuality illegal.

You didn't provide a source on that statement. So I used the source provided to find similar conservative cultural attitudes and drew a logical inference. Because it turns out that viewpoints about homosexuality are nearly always tied up with other views on gender and sexuality norms, so it's reasonable to suggest that how you look at those things are indicative of the overall sentiment toward LGBTQ people as well.

And bluntly I've read what UK media say about LGBTQ folk more generally. You'll forgive me if I don't think Muslims are the biggest existential threat to their lives and safety. Indeed, that's the problem: if immigrants think that their more conservative values will find resonance in their new home, they're much more likely to hold onto them.

These are problems because you're blaming immigrants for them and not thinking of the larger system and environment around you.
These are problems because you WANT them to be problems rather than doing the hard work of fixing your heart and encouraging the same in others.