zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. dang+(OP)[view] [source] 2015-11-14 03:28:53
The part I quoted was not factual and was a slur.
replies(1): >>decipl+q1
2. decipl+q1[view] [source] 2015-11-14 04:03:21
>>dang+(OP)
It's not a slur against Islam in the slightest, it's a supposition, with a link in support of it. If one-third of a population supports or tolerates a heinous thing, then it is not unreasonable to claim that the reason the population has a reputation for supporting or tolerating the heinous thing, is that one-third of them actually do support or tolerate it. I don't think it would be particularly controversial to say "American whites in the 50s had a reputation for racism" due to widespread support of Jim Crow and segregation, even if those things were not actually supported by the majority, but only a significant minority. So it goes here.

My takeaway from it would be "why does one-third of this population support this heinous thing?" but it's impossible to have that conversation with people like you piping in and asserting that any interpretation of data that could offend anyone's sensibilities, is off limits.

[go to top]