The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam

[nik-]

Sure, when some toothless ####wit makes a comment about Islam, is anyone here really listening to them? There is a lot of chaff on both sides. Reasoned arguments need to stopped being dismissed this way though. If it's wrong, say why. Critique and counter critique. Don't be cowards and slander someone.

[rubecube]

On a related note (and just to make Cliff and CHL's heads explode), I had a facebook post show up in my feed from a friend asking if anyone knew of any science courses they could suggest her in university that weren't based on reason. I just kind of slowly closed my laptop and muttered "God damn it, Vancouver."

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

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.

Well, actually I would say that there isn't much debate because people like you are trying to enter a conversation so far removed from reality that there isn't anything to talk about.

1) "Liberalism" is too wide a phrase and doesn't really mean anything.

2) The people in this thread who tend to use words such as "liberals" tend to mean "those people who are dumb, so either you're dumb or you're not the people I mean".

3) There is no problem with Islam in general, at least not ones that western non-muslims should or could do anything about.

4) The best actual policies (in the sense that they are proven to work by good research) in dealing with radical islamism have so far been clearly the most liberal options.

So actually the topic should be

"Relative humanism: why is it so effective in countering extremist violence, even though some people strongly believe it can not possibly work".

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

On a related note (and just to make Cliff and CHL's heads explode), I saw facebook post show up in my feed from a friend asking if anyone knew of any science courses they could suggest her in university that weren't based on reason. I just kind of slowly closed my laptop and muttered "God damn it, Vancouver."

Are they still teaching Intro to Phrenology at UVic?

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

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.

I read a qood piece about this on Facebook, but can't find because you know Facebook. Anyway the point goes something like this:

While radical islamist terrorism is scary, people should try to remember that there is nothing that suggests that radical islamist terrorism is a serious threat to the western way of life.

Remember, these groups are not holding anything back. They already consider themselves in an all out war with us. They've been saying for two decades now that they're doing anything they can to destroy us. In other words, they've already been striking at us as hard as they can, as often as they can, and with every possible way they can think of.

The sum total of what they can throw at us in the Western hemisphere has proven to be a handful of guys with a few guns and sometimes but quite rarely bombs. Sometimes they only have knives.

Everyone else is on the other side.

Originally Posted by rubecube

On a related note (and just to make Cliff and CHL's heads explode), I saw facebook post show up in my feed from a friend asking if anyone knew of any science courses they could suggest her in university that weren't based on reason.

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by rubecube

On a related note (and just to make Cliff and CHL's heads explode), I saw facebook post show up in my feed from a friend asking if anyone knew of any science courses they could suggest her in university that weren't based on reason. I just kind of slowly closed my laptop and muttered "God damn it, Vancouver."

Sounds like a future homeopath to me. Possibly a chiropractor. How does she feel about subluxations?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Itse

Well, actually I would say that there isn't much debate because people like you are trying to enter a conversation so far removed from reality that there isn't anything to talk about.

1) "Liberalism" is too wide a phrase and doesn't really mean anything.

2) The people in this thread who tend to use words such as "liberals" tend to mean "those people who are dumb, so either you're dumb or you're not the people I mean".

3) There is no problem with Islam in general, at least not ones that western non-muslims should or could do anything about.

4) The best actual policies (in the sense that they are proven to work by good research) in dealing with radical islamism have so far been clearly the most liberal options.

So actually the topic should be

"Relative humanism: why is it so effective in countering extremist violence, even though some people strongly believe it can not possibly work".

Whether or not this is true seems to be the original intent of the thread.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

Are they still teaching Intro to Phrenology at UVic?

Nah, they've moved on to cooler sounding bull#### such as "The Science of Batman," and some weird Harry Potter course.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Itse

I read a qood piece about this on Facebook, but can't find because you know Facebook. Anyway the point goes something like this:

While radical islamist terrorism is scary, people should try to remember that there is nothing that suggests that radical islamist terrorism is a serious threat to the western way of life.

Remember, these groups are not holding anything back. They already consider themselves in an all out war with us. They've been saying for two decades now that they're doing anything they can to destroy us. In other words, they've already been striking at us as hard as they can, as often as they can, and with every possible way they can think of.

The sum total of what they can throw at us in the Western hemisphere has proven to be a handful of guys with a few guns and sometimes but quite rarely bombs. Sometimes they only have knives.

Everyone else is on the other side.

Islamist extremism might not take down Western liberalism, but it could vastly change the security situation and legislation, and greatly impact the definition of 'freedom' in those countries. This 'handful of guys' seems to have no end... we've been killing them for 20 years and they have their own country now.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

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.

I'm tempted to respond that the solution is to outsmart and thereby enlighten the grizzly, but I am currently reflecting on an episode of a Revisionist History "The Paradox of Satire" which I am struggling to digest because I had a long-held beleif that satire is a powerful tool for undermining ignorance.

tl;dl - if satire is effective enough, it becomes self-defeating, like LMFAO's 'Party Rock Anthem' or Machiavelli's "The Prince"

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by Gozer

tl;dl - if satire is effective enough, it becomes self-defeating, like LMFAO's 'Party Rock Anthem' or Machiavelli's "The Prince"

LMFAO and Machiavelli in the same sentence? I bow to you, sir.

[Itse]

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.

France started to have problems with radical islamist terrorism after they started targeting Muslims with hardline rightwing policies. (To appease the hardline right political movement, which is huge in France.)

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.

France have already changed their immigration policies, multiculturalism policies and religious tolerance policies. The results have been an increase in muslim radicalism.

But I'm sure the problem was that they didn't go far enough. And I'm sure it's still somehow all the liberals fault, even though they opposed all those failed policy changes.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Itse

France started to have problems with radical islamist terrorism after they started targeting Muslims with hardline rightwing policies. (To appease the hardline right political movement, which is huge in France.)



France have already changed their immigration policies, multiculturalism policies and religious tolerance policies. The results have been an increase in muslim radicalism.

But I'm sure the problem was that they didn't go far enough. And I'm sure it's still somehow all the liberals fault, even though they opposed all those failed policy changes.

Are you sure it was the revised policies that increased muslim radicalism, or did it simply draw greater attention from already existing radicals? It almost sounds like the policies cause the problem, which is sort of the liberal-apologist thinking this thread is trying to address.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Islamist extremism might not take down Western liberalism, but it could vastly change the security situation and legislation, and greatly impact the definition of 'freedom' in those countries.

In other words, the only potential large scale and long term danger the terrorists pose is the possibility that they turn people against liberal values.

This 'handful of guys' seems to have no end... we've been killing them for 20 years and they have their own country now.

There has always been terrorism and there will always be terrorism. However, it actually used to be worse, at least in Western Europe.



Large parts of Middle-East are admittedly in a really bad mess right now, but I fail to see how that is even remotely tied to Western Liberalism.

If only Reza Azlan and Glenn Greenwald would have renounced Islam in time, that would surely have stopped ISIS from ever happening!

[SebC]

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 think you're confusing liberalism with laissez-faire anarchy. Liberalism imposes restrictions on liberty to preserve greater liberties, and clamping down on radical Islam (which is a threat to things like the right to life) is a defense of liberalism, not a betrayal of it.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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.

My beef with the regressive left is that it is preempting progress on difficult issues by crying 'foul' on the conversation.

In the same vein, and roping in peter12's misgivings about a secular society, I am prompted to cite the debate over gay marriage.
Progress, in this arena, is crucial to replace the apparently-defunct concept of 1950's marriage. There are countless complications borne of increased lifespans, sexual liberation, global mobility, and degredation of community.
The task of instilling a social norm is daunting. But rather than addressing it, the debate revolves around respecting the bigoted wishes of a pious florist.

The problem hasn't begun to be solved because of anachronistic arguments in obsolete arenas.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

You can't think of any atrocities born from humanism? None? Not a huge one that is one of the worst atrocities in human history?

I want you to say it, for the proper effect.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

It almost sounds like the policies cause the problem, which is sort of the liberal-apologist thinking this thread is trying to address.

Well, obviously the sample size is too small to be certain, but lets put it this way:

The "field experiments" of different policies suggest out that extremely liberal policies can actually counter some types of extremism quite well.

Research into the topic also suggest that oppressive policies can and sometimes does create extremism, which can turn violent.

I understand that this does not fit within some people's view of how the world works, and that it's a topic where there are very few definite answers of absolute proofs. However, calling what I said "apologism" is clearly ignorant of the very real possibility that this connection does exist, and honestly I'm mostly just taking it as slander in the absence of actual arguments.

Of course this kind of argumentation is extremely typical for people who like to blame their favourite enemy for what ever happens to be the most pop issue today. No matter how absurd that whole connection is.

It used to be that liberals were to blame for drugs and rock and roll and the deterioration of family values and gay sex...

So now "liberals are wrong because terrorism"? It's as if people are running out of things to blame liberals for. It's not like there's something even resembling facts that has been presented anywhere here that would in any way connect those two dots.

So some of you don't like what some liberals are saying or not saying about Islam and/or terrorism? So what? Why should anyone care or take your opinion seriously?

Just because you have an opinion does not turn "liberalism has failed" into a fact.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by peter12

I just want to jump into this off-topic humanist debate for a second, and say that Thor probably thinks of himself as a secular humanist, but as a Northern European, he is probably more unconsciously acting out as a Protestant humanist - even though he is kind of an atheist, but really more of a school-marm.

lol school marm, oh Peter...

Yes Secular Humanist, and yes I am well aware of the religious history of Humanism, we in Iceland work with Unitarians and other Churches in Iceland which are protestant on various issues and projects.

There have been and are many definitions of Humanist, and as a simpleton like myself I am a secular humanist, among-st other labels like Atheist, skeptic..

But I've always liked the AHA run down of what Humanism is and has been defined as: http://americanhumanist.org/humanism/what_is_humanism

[Itse]

For those interested in research...

What causes Radicalisation? Main lines of consensus in recent research.

To summarize freely:

There are many different theories about radicalization, and a grand unifying theory that fits all situations seems unlikely. There are however some things that are mostly agreed upon by researchers.

Radicalization is not born out of any one thing.

First, there are enabling factors, such as modernity. (Internet, large groups of people living together, mass transit etc. All this enables ideas to move quickly and likeminded people to find each other.) However, not all modern people turn into terrorists.

Then there motivational factors, such as poverty, sense of being excluded, experiences of being discriminated and social segregation. (Note that you don't have to collect the whole set, so for example you don't have to be poor.) However, not all modern people with problems turn into terrorists.

Then you probably need some kind of a trigger that you feel like you need to respond to, such as Western forces attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. (Or for a more historical example, 1773 Tea Act that lead to the Boston Tea Party.) However, not all modern people with problems that are triggered turn into terrorists.

Then you need some sort of an ideological factor where the ideology has inherently violent goals. (Note: studies don't seem to suggest that there is something unique about religions that causes violence, nor that there are significant differences between major religions. Secular ideologies can be just as violent.) However, not all modern people with problems that are triggered that adopt ideologies with violent goals become terrorists.

Last you have the individual factors. Some terrorists are literally crazy, but most are not. A direct quote is needed here:

Economic background, relative assimilation into ‘host’ cultures, apparent ideological background and other seemingly important factors all fail to account for why some people act violently and others do not. The background factors are as individual as those who choose this step and this in a large part explains the difficulty of theories of radicalisation to accurately predict violent behaviour.

However, this should not distract from attention given to the causes of radicalisation discussed above. For example, while the current and previous UK government warns universities that lonely Muslim students are potentially at risk of radicalisation, there is much less chance of any young person becoming radicalised if they have not viewed their life through a prism of discrimination or deprivation, have not seen particular events, such as the Iraq war, as requiring a direct and personal response and have not joined groups with violent ideologies and aims.

My take on what this suggest people should do about terrorism:

- Listen to the liberals: be firmly against discrimination and racism
- Listen to the conservatives: don't support "multicultural" policies blindly, some of those policies create segregated communities
- Listen to the left: support policies that reduce income inequality
- Listen to the right: Make life difficult for people and groups that preach violence, let the police and security agencies keep track of them and arrest them if they give any cause for doing so.

Note that this should work just as well against Muslim radicalism as it would against far right terrorism.