Y'all, if this isn't prejudice towards Muslims...
I keep seeing this and I find it hard to be convinced.
Atheist man criticizes religions and their horrifically damaging effect on all of us collectively. As an Atheist myself, that's hard to disagree with.
Help me here: Criticizing the religion itself without being hateful to it's people in general or even individually- isn't calling it "Islamophobic" (a word that should and DOES carry a heavy weight) in instances of criticism really warranted? And also, we criticize the FUCK out of Christianity here in the states, and Christianity is not as dangerous, toxic, or without progress. For instance- I cant be beheaded in America for being an Atheist or Gay. Can we say that about the rest of the world? And I'll criticize a Christian directly to their face, especially when they start spittin some bullshit. Hell, criticism of Christianity is not only allowed here, it's pretty much encouraged from what I see. Yet I'm not demonized as "Anti-Christian", except from some salty ass Conservative.
How is that not hypocritical? Where is the bar?
And that (to me) is my only problem with my fellows on the left. There's a lot of noise surrounding what something is, and isn't, when it comes to defining a weighted term like "Islamaphobia", "Racist", etc. It muddies the water. It reduces the weight of the term. Criticizing beliefs and hateful, toxic views? That's not anything "phobic". It's criticism. The same as criticism of Israel's handling of the Palestine conflict is not "Anti-semitic. People suggesting that it is, are bastardizing not only the history of clear and blatant anti-semitism, but also dislocates the bar to what it actually is, and where everybody can agree. Or, it's the same as somebody having dreadlocks not being racist because they have dreadlocks. (I mean... Really?) Same thing: People suggesting that it is, are bastardizing not only the history of clear and blatant racism, but also dislocates the bar to what it actually is, and where everybody can agree. And of course, I know there's a nuance to everything, but the response to that nuance should not be binary.
EDIT: Whoops, sorry- didn't see the mod message, though I would say- Seeing as we're dealing with an "alt-right" movement here, It may just be me, but I think it's fair that if we're going to de-platform folks with shitty views, we deplatform the right ones, without being intellectually dishonest about WHO the right ones are. Richard Dawkins is not one of them.