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

[jammies]

"I know thousands of Muslims. Great Muslims, the best Muslims. The kind of people Crooked Thor hates. Because they are great, and he can't stand greatness. Well, I have a message for Crooked Thor - get ready for a righteous thrashing by Trumpy-Gunt. "

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Gozer

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

So much this. The regressive left have set out a dogmatic model of the world, and any approaches that don't suit this dogma - including, increasingly, approaches that are scientifically sound - are immediately denounced. It's an unrelenting campaign to define the terms of discussion, and shove anything that challenges leftist dogma off the table.

The only explanation for the wage gap is sexism. Different choices in studies and vocation, and differing willingness to work long hours or in physically unpleasant conditions, voluntary decisions to devote more energy to family than career - off the table. The notion that some of these differences may be innately gendered - off the table. Recognizing the growing gap in educational attainment between girls and boys - off the table. The very notion that we have innate capabilities or tendencies - off the table.

The only acceptable explanations for the dire state of many native communities in Canada is the residential school system and white bigotry. Family breakdown, toxic child-rearing conditions, the dependency fostered by the reserve system, and endemic substance abuse - off the table.

The only explanation for why some countries or regions are economic basket-cases is Western colonialism and exploitation. Any examination of former colonies that are economic success stories, and comparison of their cultural values with less successful countries - off the table.

We're transitioning from a period when the weightiest anchor against progress was the stubborn traditions of conservatism, to a period when it's the blinkered dogma of the left holding us back. Whole fields of science, such as evolutionary psychology, are denounced because of how they might inform us about our world. The staggering gains in food production that science enabled are being challenged because they run contrary to a romantic naturalism that clouds leftist thought. We've deluded ourselves that intransigent disparities in material wealth can be overcome if only white people and men atone for their sins and stop being bigots. And worst of all, liberalism itself - an essential element in making the modern West the most prosperous, tolerant, and progressive society in history - is being abandoned in favour of the dark appeal of tribal identity.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Makarov

That is an interesting but not at all widespread problem. For example, I seriously doubt that anyone who posts on this forum could be described as a moral relativist.

Hmm?

I am absolutely and I would actually guess most western people are at some level these days. At it's most basic (descriptive) level moral relativism is simply the acceptance that different people might have different morals, and that they are for example tied to culture and personal background etc. Descriptive moral relativism still allows for the possibility of universal rights and wrongs to exist. So you can for example say that "people have different morals, but ours are better than theirs".


The term you might be looking for is meta-ethical relativist, which is the position that the terms "good", "bad" etc. only exist in relations to ones culture, background etc. In other words, there are no universally wrong acts. However, quite many meta-ethical relativists hold the position that it's okay (and necessary) to make moral judgements about others using your own personal morals.


The most "hardcore" relavitism is normative relativism, which declares that we should accept the behavior of others regardless of what our personal morals say. This is the position that "we can only judge Muslims according to their own standards".


I guess what I'm saying is that moral relativism is quite nuanced and not at all the moral dead end some seem to think it is.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

In my experience based on the hundreds, upon thousands of Muslims ive had the chance to get to know, I would say less than .01% of them would be the extremist radicals who are willing to cut some journalists head off because they view them as an infidel. 70% of the Muslims I met are either non-religious or moderates who drink and dont hold religious values at all. Close to 30 percent are religious Muslims who pray 5 times a day and fast during Ramadan but are totally against terrorism and violence.

Your personal experience is narrow, and not representative of global attitudes expressed by Muslims.

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/i...s-and-society/

75 per cent of Muslims in Egypt believe sharia should be the law of the land. In Pakistan, that number of closer to 90 per cent. A quarter of Muslims in the UK want sharia to have primacy over secular law. Globally, 80-90 per cent of Muslims believe alcohol, sex outside marriage, and homesexuality are morally wrong. 85 per cent of Muslims believe women should always obey their husbands.

Whatever other values are held regarding violence and terrorism, there is no doubt at all that Muslims are overwhelmingly extremely socially conservative.

Originally Posted by Itse

What is the worst that people who accuse other people of bigotry do? Get people fired for no good reason?

Employ shaming and fear to shut down debate and narrow the range of discussion. Or have you missed the weekly apologies in the media by some public figure or other for making comments that were denounced as bigoted? You don't think the fear of media outrage has chilled public dialog on a whole range of issues?

What do you think the range of debate on native issues are for a public figure in Canada today? Do you think that narrow range of acceptable discussion helps or hinders progress of native issues? That's exactly where liberalism and leftism part ways. Liberalism values the widest scope of debate, with the largest number of options and arguments and most wide-ranging and rigorous discussion. The shibboleths and taboos of the left choke off that debate. We live in a society today where accusations of bigotry are the new scarlet letter.

[Flash Walken]

When I read Huntington it was as an example of poor historiography and conclusion based research rather than research based conclusions.

Guns, germs and steel was assigned reading for basically the same reasons.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You don't think the fear of media outrage has chilled public dialog on a whole range of issues?

No. Let's start with the obvious, Donald Trump is a candidate for POTUS.

That whole narrative of "chilled public dialog" is IMO a completely false narrative based on the idea of a supposed better alternative that has never existed.

What we have now is actual debate over racism, sexism, classism, ableism and so and and so forth. All the same bigoted arguments are still very much around. Sexism and racism, both overt and casual, is still rampant in the media, both in news and in entertainment.

The opposing voices that are now being heard very loudly have not silenced the other voices out of existence. Just some of them.

There might not be that much room for nuanced narratives in the mainstream media, but then again I'm not sure there is a high demand for it anymore. Mainstream media is more and more simply fodder for social media, which is where the actual discussions happen.

What do you think the range of debate on native issues are for a public figure in Canada today?

Sorry, I really don't know enough about this to have a conversation about it.

That's exactly where liberalism and leftism part ways. Liberalism values the widest scope of debate, with the largest number of options and arguments and most wide-ranging and rigorous discussion. The shibboleths and taboos of the left choke off that debate. We live in a society today where accusations of bigotry are the new scarlet letter.

I don't think labeling left = SJW's is at all fair, and all that kind of labeling does is give the SJW's more power than they deserve, and it marginalizes the people on the left who actually have their s*** together.

While the unfortunate phenomenon does exist that the SJW:s can destroy careers and create a threatening atmosphere for discussion, this phenomenon is mostly contained within certain bubbles. You can even create a whole career out of simply taking a contrarian view to anything the SJW's want, which I think very clearly shows that the phenomenon of "chilling debate" is vastly overstated.

In fact I would say the opposite is true. Public discussion is very heated and right now and the number of topics under discussion is huge. Possibly even comparable to the situation in the 60's and 70's.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Itse

Thank you for saying that because it cuts away a lot of the pretense.

However, the original intent of the thread is to blame liberals for "dealing with Islam".

This presupposes that the problem exists, and that somehow liberals should "deal" with it. What does that even mean?

What's there to debate? It's a bonkers claim, and no one has even tried to prove that it makes sense, let alone that it matters enough to talk about.

You seem to be in combat mode. I'm a liberal, but I struggle with liberalisms extremely broad range of tolerance, especially towards certain religiously motivated violence.

I stand by my point... the purpose of this thread did not seem to be blaming liberals, it seemed to be taking up Sam Harris' point of asking why liberals give violent religion a free pass. It's a liberal vs liberal debate in my mind, not conservative vs liberal.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Itse

It was mentioned before in the article Thor linked that I quoted.

Islam is a religion. It's a much more complex thing than ideology. In fact, within Islam you can have two completely contradicting ideologies.

Islamism is an ideology that Islam should rule the society. They're as much a political movement as they are a religious one. Secular Muslims are their polar opposite.

To generalize, if you use problems of Islamism as representative of all of Islam, you are doing exactly what the secular Muslims are begging you don't do. You are essentially wiping moderate, secular Muslims completely out of sight, as if they don't even exist.

But this is taking the stance that it's only Islamists that are the problem. Clearly they are, even if they're non violent, just as any religious right supporter in the US who wanted to impose "christian values" on the nation would be a problem.

Islamists get their ideas from somewhere and it's not thin air. The Quran and the hadiths supply their ideology and as a result criticizing the source of those ideas is perfectly game.

No one here is doing a blanket condemnation, but if you think it's wrong to criticize the ####ty components of Islam, just as we'd criticize the ####ty components of Christianity, then we'll never be on the same page.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You seem to be in combat mode. I'm a liberal, but I struggle with liberalisms extremely broad range of tolerance, especially towards certain religiously motivated violence.

I stand by my point... the purpose of this thread did not seem to be blaming liberals, it seemed to be taking up Sam Harris' point of asking why liberals give violent religion a free pass. It's a liberal vs liberal debate in my mind, not conservative vs liberal.

Who is arguing for tolerance of religiously motivated violence?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Itse

Hmm?

I am absolutely and I would actually guess most western people are at some level these days. At it's most basic (descriptive) level moral relativism is simply the acceptance that different people might have different morals, and that they are for example tied to culture and personal background etc. Descriptive moral relativism still allows for the possibility of universal rights and wrongs to exist. So you can for example say that "people have different morals, but ours are better than theirs".


The term you might be looking for is meta-ethical relativist, which is the position that the terms "good", "bad" etc. only exist in relations to ones culture, background etc. In other words, there are no universally wrong acts. However, quite many meta-ethical relativists hold the position that it's okay (and necessary) to make moral judgements about others using your own personal morals.


The most "hardcore" relavitism is normative relativism, which declares that we should accept the behavior of others regardless of what our personal morals say. This is the position that "we can only judge Muslims according to their own standards".


I guess what I'm saying is that moral relativism is quite nuanced and not at all the moral dead end some seem to think it is.

Fair enough. I was using words clumsily.

[Flash Walken]

This itse is my favourite itse

[Itse]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

You seem to be in combat mode. I'm a liberal, but I struggle with liberalisms extremely broad range of tolerance, especially towards certain religiously motivated violence.

I stand by my point... the purpose of this thread did not seem to be blaming liberals, it seemed to be taking up Sam Harris' point of asking why liberals give violent religion a free pass. It's a liberal vs liberal debate in my mind, not conservative vs liberal.

As I've said, "liberals give violent religion a free pass" is a completely bonkers claim that barely deserves discussion. It just does not hold water when faced with reality.

It's liberals who have for decades fought against female circumcision in Islam, and they have not stopped just because it's now more of in issue also in the West. It's liberals who opposed the western policy of supporting Islamists against socialists and democratic forces, and especially the leftist liberals are still active in opposing that. Liberals have for a very long time demanded that the west put pressure on Islamist regimes such as Saudi Arabia to further the human rights situation in those countries, and they're still fighting that fight.

Right now in the west, liberals are trying to get funding for classes to teach womens rights to immigrants, creating research based policies to fight violent extremism etc. etc. In short, western liberals are at the forefront of resisting the violent elements in Islam and trying to defuse religions tensions and fight discrimination (which as research shows is a contributing factor to terrorism and radicalism).

Is every single liberal 100% correct and in the right about Islam? Of course not, but who cares? Why is this even in the sphere of relevant discussion? There is just nothing of worth to be achieved in that direction.

At the same time western governments are selling weapons and financially backing a government in Turkey that is decisively moving the country towards a theocratic dictatorship. (With the supposed purpose of keeping Turkey in the western camp, and right now failing miserably.) Western governments are still indirectly selling arms to Al-Qaida. It's liberal news medias like the Guardian that are most vocally questioning these policies, yet people claim that somehow the Guardian is the problem here?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Itse has basically become Officer Barbrady for the problems with the left. "Move along people, nothing to see here".

Originally Posted by Makarov

I don't think that this is quite accurate. As I understand it, Nawaz coined the term "regressive left" to describe the difficulties posed by moral relativism (as an academic or scientific position) for political discourse. Anthropologists do not make for effective or useful political commentators.

Not quite accurate - the correct definition is people who hold the standard set of liberal values of freedom of religion, the empowerment of women, equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation and the like, but refuse to apply those standards consistently. Moral relativism does play into it, but it's a sort of moral relativism that creates hierarchies based on perceived victimhood. I've always thought this was a decent summary of what's going on in these peoples' heads: http://goddoesnt.blogspot.ca/2016/01...egressive.html

Now, "regressive left" has really just become a snarl word applied to people that one disagrees with (it seems to me anyway.)

This is true in many cases. As soon as people like Rubin started getting a following, they almost immediately became their own little moral tribe subject to the same sorts of biases and prone to much of the same bad behaviour as the people they were criticizing.

Even the supposed anti-regressive cult figures fall into this; at one point I criticized Gad Saad for essentially using dishonest, hyperbolic smear tactics against an interlocutor, and he suggested that doing so was fine on the grounds that the guy he was smearing (Dean Obeidallah) was "a despicable grotesque individual who represents all that is wrong with the West" and that if I didn't like his tactics I should stop following him. So I did.

It's become just another moral crusade in many ways, complete with its own sacred dogma. Sure, that dogma's better than the dogma it opposes, but this just never works out well.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Itse has basically become Officer Barbrady for the problems with the left. "Move along people, nothing to see here".

I have numerous times asked for people to prove the problem exists, and yet no one has taken on that challenge. No one is arguing my fact-based claims.

It's almost as if all you have to go on is your personal bias, and all you've got to throw at me is these ad hominen snipes.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

So much this. The regressive left have set out a dogmatic model of the world, and any approaches that don't suit this dogma - including, increasingly, approaches that are scientifically sound - are immediately denounced. It's an unrelenting campaign to define the terms of discussion, and shove anything that challenges leftist dogma off the table.

The only explanation for the wage gap is sexism. Different choices in studies and vocation, and differing willingness to work long hours or in physically unpleasant conditions, voluntary decisions to devote more energy to family than career - off the table. The notion that some of these differences may be innately gendered - off the table. Recognizing the growing gap in educational attainment between girls and boys - off the table. The very notion that we have innate capabilities or tendencies - off the table.

The only acceptable explanations for the dire state of many native communities in Canada is the residential school system and white bigotry. Family breakdown, toxic child-rearing conditions, the dependency fostered by the reserve system, and endemic substance abuse - off the table.

The only explanation for why some countries or regions are economic basket-cases is Western colonialism and exploitation. Any examination of former colonies that are economic success stories, and comparison of their cultural values with less successful countries - off the table.

We're transitioning from a period when the weightiest anchor against progress was the stubborn traditions of conservatism, to a period when it's the blinkered dogma of the left holding us back. Whole fields of science, such as evolutionary psychology, are denounced because of how they might inform us about our world. The staggering gains in food production that science enabled are being challenged because they run contrary to a romantic naturalism that clouds leftist thought. We've deluded ourselves that intransigent disparities in material wealth can be overcome if only white people and men atone for their sins and stop being bigots. And worst of all, liberalism itself - an essential element in making the modern West the most prosperous, tolerant, and progressive society in history - is being abandoned in favour of the dark appeal of tribal identity.

Jesus, it's like a God damn caliphate of strawmen.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Employ shaming and fear to shut down debate and narrow the range of discussion. Or have you missed the weekly apologies in the media by some public figure or other for making comments that were denounced as bigoted? You don't think the fear of media outrage has chilled public dialog on a whole range of issues?

What do you think the range of debate on native issues are for a public figure in Canada today? Do you think that narrow range of acceptable discussion helps or hinders progress of native issues? That's exactly where liberalism and leftism part ways. Liberalism values the widest scope of debate, with the largest number of options and arguments and most wide-ranging and rigorous discussion. The shibboleths and taboos of the left choke off that debate. We live in a society today where accusations of bigotry are the new scarlet letter.

If someone's argument appears unsupported by statistics or appears to make illogical inferences, I don't have a problem with asking whether or not that argument is based on stereotypes or the the attribution of arbitrary characteristics to groups of people. People shouldn't be afraid of being accused of bigotry. There is a clear defence to such an accusation: showing the rational and evidence-based support for your position. If you can't do that, perhaps it's time for some quiet introspection and reconsideration of your views.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

I have numerous times asked for people to prove the problem exists, and yet no one has taken on that challenge. No one is arguing my fact-based claims.

It's almost as if all you have to go on is your personal bias, and all you've got to throw at me is these ad hominen snipes.

Someone's feisty. Look, thousands of people seem to recognize this problem exists. It's obvious enough to me, which is all I need from my perspective. If you've been paying attention and can't see it I'm not sure what I could do to "prove" it to you. Your answer seems to be "Donald Trump exists" - yes, and is basically being accused in every way of being a bigot, both in contexts where he actually is and those where he isn't really, as a way to discredit him... instead of pointing to the actual reasons he's totally unqualified.

Your answer to those examples Cliff gave seems to be the same as Rube's - no one really believes this stuff. But their behaviour suggests otherwise. The best you can say is that they're a loud fringe that no one actually follows, but given how loud, and in particular the influence they seem to have on young people particularly, I consider them a real problem.

Last night a crazy person said things about me that you acknowledged were totally non-representative of me or my view of the world, but that was fine with you and did no real damage, because I'm here and people can read my words and speak for myself and it's not stopping me from talking, as if that were a satisfactory answer; "see? There's no problem here." As if these sorts of smears don't have reputational consequences when done on a larger scale than a forum board.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm skeptical that your position on this is defeasible and consequently don't much see the point. Which is why my first post in this thread was:

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This thread is going to go so, so poorly.

[rubecube]

I lost interest in this debate a while back but I do love that Corsi just opened his latest response with an ad populum.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I lost interest in this debate a while back but I do love that Corsi just opened his latest response with an ad populum.

Totally. But I also clearly said that I wasn't trying to "prove the problem exists" to anyone (there being in my view no point), so the ad populum isn't doing anything other than giving me enough of a statistical sample to satisfy me that I'm not crazy and this isn't just all our heads, as Itse seems to think. So it's not functioning as a logical argument or anything.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

But this is taking the stance that it's only Islamists that are the problem. Clearly they are, even if they're non violent, just as any religious right supporter in the US who wanted to impose "christian values" on the nation would be a problem.

Islamists get their ideas from somewhere and it's not thin air. The Quran and the hadiths supply their ideology and as a result criticizing the source of those ideas is perfectly game.

Here are a few facts that studies have shown about Muslim terrorists:

- They generally know the Quran only very superficially
- They almost never have a particularly religious upbringing
- Religious Islamic upbringing actually protects people from turning towards violent extremism.
- Studies have found no difference in any of the major religions tendency to produce terrorists. In fact they have not even found religions to be any different from secular ideologies in that regard.

So essentially, your presumption that somehow Islam feeds these groups is counter to what the facts and studies have taught us.

The fact that a religious upbringing protects from violent extremism actually suggests that we should not be criticizing Islam for feeding these groups, but instead praise it for resisting it.

There is actually a stronger correlation between engineering and terrorism than there is between Islam and terrorism. (Quite a few notable terrorists have an engineering background.)

In other words, if you want to discuss world views that breed violent extremism, maybe we should discuss whether or not engineering studies breed potentially dangerous binary morals?

No one here is doing a blanket condemnation,

I'm not at all convinced that is true.

but if you think it's wrong to criticize the ####ty components of Islam, just as we'd criticize the ####ty components of Christianity, then we'll never be on the same page.

I don't think it's wrong to criticize the s***ty components of Islam, but as far as we know, terrorism is not one of those s***ty components.


And as I said, Islam is a huge tent, like Christianity. Discussing them as if they were one thing is IMO intelligently lazy and will never produce anything of worth.

If you want to discuss a certain part of Islam, go right ahead. I'm all for people going after religious fundamentalists in particular, such as Wahhabists.