News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Wikipedia blocked in Turkey by hd4 on Saturday April 29, 2017 @06:35AM (#14225902)
You seem to be implying that because they're Muslim but not really Islamic and very western that it's somehow not desirable for them to become more Islamic. How about you let them decide what's good for themselves? Why is it scary just because it's Islamic? I detect racist undertones in your post. And I don't think much of Erdogan at all, and how he thinks censorship is cool. But you don't get to start deciding what's good for a nation unless you're happy for others to decide what's good for Canada too.
Re:Wikipedia blocked in Turkey by andybak on Saturday April 29, 2017 @06:56AM (#14225959)
As an atheist is it 'racist' for me to want a country to be "less Islamic". I certainly want countries to become "less Christian" - and generally less ideological, less superstitious, more rational and less socially conservative.

If that bundles up as "more Western" then so be it. These are the values I hold dear. I want more of the world to be liberal democracies and I an unhappy when a nation retreats from that.

Re:Wikipedia blocked in Turkey by _Adam on Saturday April 29, 2017 @06:43AM (#14225930)
Well, for starters they didn't decide for themselves. It was decided for them: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/world/europe/turkey-refer...

The greater issue though, is that it seems the "majority" is now imposing their religious ideals on a "minority". That is an unacceptable violation of the basic right to religious freedom.

Sadly Turkey is far from the first country in the Middle East to do this. There's a guy in Saudi Arabia on death row because he admitted to being atheist on his blog / social media.

Re:Wikipedia blocked in Turkey by pbhjpbhj on Saturday April 29, 2017 @10:30AM (#14226734)
>The greater issue though, is that it seems the "majority" is now imposing their religious ideals on a "minority". That is an unacceptable violation of the basic right to religious freedom. //

But that violent subjugation of non-Muslims is a central part of Islam (as practiced and preached by Mohammed). Become a Muslim, if you're "people of the book" pay jizra, or die. That's the only way for an Islamic majority to stay true to Mohammed's injunctions.

Unless Islam turns is back on Mohammed and the Koran it can't become accepting of our Western concept of human rights in this way.

Muslims whom I know are thankfully just not practicing this party of their religion and not emulating Mohammed in this way; but suggestion they are not being true to Mohammed and his ideals would nonetheless be a massive affront to them. I see no way to fit Mohammedism in to a peaceful world.

Re:Wikipedia blocked in Turkey by cryptarch on Saturday April 29, 2017 @07:21AM (#14226041)
Race != religion, and it is in no way unreasonable to judge people for following backwards religious doctrines that are a danger to the people themselves and their surroundings.

"I'm sorry, but we've decided you're not a cultural fit" is a reasonable response to Turkey wanting to join the EU in its current state IMO.

Re:Wikipedia blocked in Turkey by imaginenore on Saturday April 29, 2017 @07:00AM (#14225970)
Islam is not a race, it's a religion, so he is not racist at all in his comment. You don't choose the color of your skin, but you have a choice which religion to follow, or not follow any.
Re:Wikipedia blocked in Turkey by hd4 on Saturday April 29, 2017 @07:21AM (#14226035)
It's less about Islam being a race and more about how Manifest Destiny is showing its ugly face once more.
Re:Wikipedia blocked in Turkey by stupidhn on Saturday April 29, 2017 @06:48AM (#14225944)
I like that you think people living under dictators "decide for themselves".
Re:Wikipedia blocked in Turkey by nebabyte on Saturday April 29, 2017 @07:30AM (#14226067)
They can. Revolution is an option too. "Decisions" do not begin and end with a paper ballot; ultimately, everyone is human and can be ousted from power or killed by an angry mob.

"The army" that would defend him are countrymen; the wealthy who help maintain the status quo are a much wider group of individuals whose interests can be led to differ from his own.

That said, I do not think it should have to come to violence. If "the 49%" are steadfast and "the 51%" are beginning to doubt, calls could be organized for another referendum or neutral third party arbitration or such. The EU or UN would at minimum have something to justify a closer look. Though I haven't been following this too closely, so maybe it's too late idk.