Quote:
Originally Posted by longsuffering
And throwing the term 'new McCarthyism' around is dismissive of legitimate comment.
|
But saying someone you disagree with doesn't really mean what they say they mean, but instead according to your suspicion are actually motivated by some secret hate-based agenda, isn't a legitimate comment. It couldn't be more similar to McCarthyism. Engaging with the ideas as expressed, head on, without searching for some nefarious underlying purpose so that you don't have to have that discussion is an awful practice. Stop doing it.
Quote:
|
While it's true that not all anti-refugee, 'Islam is dangerous' proponents are bigoted xenophobes, it doesn't change the fact that a significant number of people hiding behind 'security' concerns and questioning 'what's it going to cost' are intolerant. You see it on your Facebook feed. You see the same thing when the topic is First Nations issues as well. You see it Comments posted on the internet. You see it in the news!
|
First, you have to acknowledge that some people who make these points are actually motivated by security concerns. They're actually concerned about safety. They might be WRONG to be concerned, but that's a discussion worth having. Don't just write off the opinion. This is the exact problem I'm trying to get across to you with this style of discussion.
There are, of course, anti-Muslim bigots and anti-Arab bigots out there. This may be so, but accusing people of effectively being witches (which is really what you're doing) is not productive. I'm a liberal, and my philosophical world view is consistent with my position on these issues. Where it's pointed out to me that it's not consistent, I'm compelled, as a liberal, to address that and figure out if there is inconsistency and if so, where it's sourced, so that I can stop being wrong. There's simply no racial motivation to it.
Criticism of Islam, as a set of doctrines, has nothing to do with bigotry. Criticism of an idea, as I said earlier, applies whether the idea is held by no people or a million people, and whether those million people are black, white, purple or green. It applies equally to a white guy from California who decides that ISIS is the place for him as it does to anyone else.
In other words, I agree that some people are secretly or unconsciously motivated by bigotry in expressing certain ideas, but if their ideas flow from flawed premises you can usually point out the problem with the idea itself without attacking the source. Attempting to ad-hominem people in this way is making it extremely difficult to have discussions on certain topics these days, and not just this one - police action / brutality is another good example.
If you think someone's wrong, explain why, don't attack their character. It's really that simple.