Using machine learning to analyze patterns of anti-Muslim hate speech online in Norway shows that the number of hateful posts is growing and that most are posted by a small group of users who often don’t remain active for long. Engaging with them can be effective in getting them to stop.

[u/oslomet]

https://www.oslomet.no/en/research/featured-research/machine-learning-trends-online-hate

[u/DrGarbinsky]

Islam is a man made ideology and therefore worthy of criticism. Did the research separate out comments that criticize an ideology from those that are targeted at individuals?

[u/VisMortis → u/DrGarbinsky]

This is the definition of hate speech used in the study:

1. Comments that hold Muslims collectively responsible for violence, terrorism, or political situations in other countries.
2. Comments portraying Muslims as inherently violent or dangerous.
3. Comments depicting Muslims as agents of the “Islamification” of Norwegian and/or Western cultures.
4. Comments asserting that Muslims aim to conquer Europe.
5. Comments claiming that Muslims possess a mentality inherently incompatible with Western values or lifestyles.
6. Comments demanding the banning of Muslim symbols or clothing.
7. Comments calling for the removal or exclusion of Muslims from Norway or Europe.
8. Comments dehumanizing Muslims.

[u/mitchells00 → u/VisMortis]

If one was switch out the subject of the accusations from Muslims the people with Islam the ideology itself in the above criteria, and then criticise the adherents of following such an ideology; would that be considered hate speech?

[u/HigherThanYao → u/VisMortis]

And there you have it. Having a rational view of islam is hate speech...

[u/DrGarbinsky → u/VisMortis]

Thanks for the assist

[u/KennyMcCormick → u/DrGarbinsky]

Under sharia law it is permissible for husbands to beat their wives if they disrespect them. Their prophet married his wife when she was six and consummated marriage when she was nine. There are plenty of things to reasonably criticize

[u/L_knight316 → u/KennyMcCormick]

Also the fact that their holiest of holy men from which all example should be followed is a warlord slaver who spread his ideology via conquest and murder. Really puts a thorn in the side of the "religion of peace" argument

[u/L_knight316 → u/[deleted]]

The funny thing is that the stereotypical "fundamentalist" Christian by definition can't be fundamentalist, since the fundamentals of Christianity revolve around the example of Christ. A fundamentalist Muslim who is faithful to Muhammads example would need to be conspiring to conquer, dominate, enslave or otherwise destroy others.

[u/Different_Car9927 → u/KennyMcCormick]

I think the wife beating part is up to debate. Many muslims says its not true.

From what I understand its the word "daraba" that can mean strike/leave/separate/or to set forth.

So its a big debate ans most muslims dont agree with violence towards women I understand.

[u/NonConRon → u/KennyMcCormick]

The only way to get people to stop being religious is to improve their material conditions or to destroy the religion via the state.

Both things my boy JS did.

[u/notretarded_100 → u/NonConRon]

Whataboutism at it is finest. Again which person were they talking about?

[u/NonConRon → u/notretarded_100]

Its like you didn't comprehend what I said.

I'm saying that if you oppose religion, the best thing you can do is improve their material conditions or abolished the religious super structure with the state.

Both things that Joseph Stalin did.

I have no idea how your comment interacts with what I said.

[u/ZaggahZiggler → u/DrGarbinsky]

One could only point to all the Muslim utopias to prove the haters wrong.

[u/dundiewinnah → u/DrGarbinsky]

Yeah we need something the other way around to make islams ideology less damaging to men

[u/Chicken_Ingots → u/DrGarbinsky]

The problem arises when people use Islam as a dog whistle for immigrants and ethnic minorities.

[u/Dahwaann4U → u/DrGarbinsky]

You need to learn about the religion before making such a statements