There is not much to debate here, really. Liberalism fails to deal with Islam because it is based on liberal values, while Islam is based on interpretation of religious beliefs. The more radical the interpretation, the more futile and pointless is Liberalism's effort to confront it. Side effect is Liberalism's tendency to appease and accommodate the most intolerant and illiberal.
On the other hand, some comments are interesting to discuss or comment on regardless of their relevancy to the OP question.
I can't quite figure out what you're saying. It sounds like this is more a statement that Liberalism can't deal with radical ideologies, but I'm not sure I see the 'why' of that.
I can't quite figure out what you're saying. It sounds like this is more a statement that Liberalism can't deal with radical ideologies, but I'm not sure I see the 'why' of that.
If he is saying that, he's wrong. Liberal democracies have beaten the crap out of two radical ideologies in the last 60 years.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
I can't quite figure out what you're saying. It sounds like this is more a statement that Liberalism can't deal with radical ideologies, but I'm not sure I see the 'why' of that.
Because the tools available to Liberalism are not applicable to fighting radicalism. I hate to slide into primitive justification, but you don't explain to a charging grizzly why he's wrong or why he shouldn't kill you. Your options are to stay away and avoid the grizzly encounter as best as you can, to kill the grizzly, or to die, because you can't outrun the grizzly. Liberalism is destined to choose the third option, because it can't use the first two.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
If he is saying that, he's wrong. Liberal democracies have beaten the crap out of two radical ideologies in the last 60 years.
And I think it will beat the crap out of this one too, eventually. Radical Islam is a symptom of weakness and frustration. The only question is how much damage it will do - to its own communities and to the rest of the world - before it's quelled.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
And I think it will beat the crap out of this one too, eventually. Radical Islam is a symptom of weakness and frustration. The only question is how much damage it will do - to its own communities and to the rest of the world - before it's quelled.
No, I think the failure of liberal democracies to come up with a coherent response is a symptom of deterioration for some of the reasons I highlighted on the last page.
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
No, I think the failure of liberal democracies to come up with a coherent response is a symptom of deterioration for some of the reasons I highlighted on the last page.
What are the signs of this deterioration? Isn't the point (and strength) of liberal democracies that we don't really need a "coherent" response?
Because the tools available to Liberalism are not applicable to fighting radicalism. I hate to slide into primitive justification, but you don't explain to a charging grizzly why he's wrong or why he shouldn't kill you. Your options are to stay away and avoid the grizzly encounter as best as you can, to kill the grizzly, or to die, because you can't outrun the grizzly. Liberalism is destined to choose the third option, because it can't use the first two.
Aren't the tools 'available to liberalism' the same as those available to liberal-democratic states... like the United States?
I guess I still don't understand... what does confrontation mean I guess when we say "liberalism doesn't have the tools to confront radicalism". What is confrontation? Just a verbal debate? I see liberalism as having more tools than the ones described above. International institutions and agreements, international codes of conduct, soft power, hard power...
I took the original post to ask why liberals aren't more critical of radical-Islam... not why they are impotent to stop radicalism.
...
I took the original post to ask why liberals aren't more critical of radical-Islam... not why they are impotent to stop radicalism.
These two are intertwined. Liberal values are good universally, but liberal policies are impotent, specifically. Look at France and its probably most liberal immigration policies. At a certain critical mass, the Islamic immigration and the radical element in it become too important to ignore. What next: do you change immigration policies to selective profiling (illiberal), do you change multiculturalism policies to forceful assimilation and integration (illiberal) or do you change religious tolerance policies (illiberal) to confront the radical Islam? Each angle of attack could be successful and, in combination, probably would be successful. But each one of them is not a permitted weapon in the Liberalism arsenal.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainYooh For This Useful Post:
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainYooh
These two are intertwined. Liberal values are good universally, but liberal policies are impotent, specifically. Look at France and its probably most liberal immigration policies. At a certain critical mass, the Islamic immigration and the radical element in it become too important to ignore. What next: do you change immigration policies to selective profiling (illiberal), do you change multiculturalism policies to forceful assimilation and integration (illiberal) or do you change religious tolerance policies (illiberal) to confront the radical Islam? Each angle of attack could be successful and, in combination, probably would be successful. But each one of them is not a permitted weapon in the Liberalism arsenal.
I suppose where I disagree with you is that I do not think there is anything particularly appealing or enduring about radical Islam. So yes, we will confront it - on a multitude of fronts - but like other crappy "-isms", it seems most likely to fail on its own. At its core, it's mostly nihilistic in my view, which doesn't exactly make the here and now more palatable for most people.
But each one of them is not a permitted weapon in the Liberalism arsenal.
I'm not sure you understand the difference between liberalism and new liberalism (the regressive left).
I'm happy for you to prove me wrong, but there seems to be a weird reaction from conservatives (look at RyZ's post in the Egypt news anchor thread) where a particularly restrictive and dangerous tenant of the regressive left is generalised against the entire left of centre spectrum.
As always, the centre (whether left of or right of) will defeat radicals. It's what happens. This idea that there is no centre, only left and right, is partisan and petty. It's immature.
In reality, there is the far left (5%), the ignorant left (10%), the far right (5%), the ignorant right (10%), and a huge swath of people in the middle (70%) with a lot in common, similar goals, but just slightly different ideas on how to get there.
Those percentages are not scientific, just how I view the western world. The more partisan and "left vs right" you try and make things, the more ignorant people become, and the more the majority of rational people in the middle believe they need to pick.
People are far too focused on left vs right, what's the left complaining about, what's the right doing, etc. That's a huge reason why there is impotency in the fight against radicalism. We're far too busy wanting to talk about what someone else with a different political stance isn't doing correctly.
The regressive left hasn't accomplished anything. Nor has anyone else. Do we have solutions?
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
...
The regressive left hasn't accomplished anything. Nor has anyone else. Do we have solutions?
Yes. Common sense, not ideology.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
That's fine. I just liked Cliff's comment about Chomsky. Please continue as you were.
__________________
"An idea is always a generalization, and generalization is a property of thinking. To generalize means to think." Georg Hegel
“To generalize is to be an idiot.” William Blake
I'm not sure you understand the difference between liberalism and new liberalism (the regressive left).
I'm happy for you to prove me wrong, but there seems to be a weird reaction from conservatives (look at RyZ's post in the Egypt news anchor thread) where a particularly restrictive and dangerous tenant of the regressive left is generalised against the entire left of centre spectrum.
As always, the centre (whether left of or right of) will defeat radicals. It's what happens. This idea that there is no centre, only left and right, is partisan and petty. It's immature.
In reality, there is the far left (5%), the ignorant left (10%), the far right (5%), the ignorant right (10%), and a huge swath of people in the middle (70%) with a lot in common, similar goals, but just slightly different ideas on how to get there.
Those percentages are not scientific, just how I view the western world. The more partisan and "left vs right" you try and make things, the more ignorant people become, and the more the majority of rational people in the middle believe they need to pick.
People are far too focused on left vs right, what's the left complaining about, what's the right doing, etc. That's a huge reason why there is impotency in the fight against radicalism. We're far too busy wanting to talk about what someone else with a different political stance isn't doing correctly.
The regressive left hasn't accomplished anything. Nor has anyone else. Do we have solutions?
I don't feel people are deriding the regressive left for not having solutions. Moreso for shutting down the conversation with claims of bigotry and racism.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
I don't feel people are deriding the regressive left for not having solutions. Moreso for shutting down the conversation with claims of bigotry and racism.
I don't really see how deriding something as racist or bigoted is shutting down the conversation so long as you're willing to explain why you think it's racist or bigoted. Considering the amount of people who still don't believe obviously racist things are racist, it's still kind of necessary to call it out. That said the "What you said was racist" approach is generally more constructive than the "You're a racist" approach.
I don't really see how deriding something as racist or bigoted is shutting down the conversation so long as you're willing to explain why you think it's racist or bigoted. Considering the amount of people who still don't believe obviously racist things are racist, it's still kind of necessary to call it out. That said the "What you said was racist" approach is generally more constructive than the "You're a racist" approach.
Well that's the problem. People don't expand, or if they do (generalizing obviously) it's along the lines of "It's racist because Islam is the religion of brown people" or it's bigoted because we lack a cultural understanding.
It does shut down the conversation because it immediately puts the person in a defensive mindset, except now they have to address claims that they're racist and not the initial subjects. The card is played way too often.
Obviously people are still racist, but that doesn't justify the quantity of criticism brushed aside using that as an umbrella.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Well that's the problem. People don't expand, or if they do (generalizing obviously) it's along the lines of "It's racist because Islam is the religion of brown people" or it's bigoted because we lack a cultural understanding.
Not to derail but I think the Islam/racism against brown people is more tied together than some give it credit for, if only because dumbass racists tend to think that brown = Islam. When a terrorist attack happens or something else drives up anti-Islamic sentiment, it's not Indonesian and Filipino Muslims who end up targeted by Western bigots.
