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.
I think you're vastly overestimating both the number of people who espouse so-called regressive left beliefs as well as the influence of those people. In mainstream discourse all of those things you mention are held up to scrutiny to one degree or another.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
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.
I don't think that thousands of people holding the same view in any way provides enough of a statistical sample to satisfy yourself that you're not crazy and it isn't all in your head. Millions of people (if this thread is to be believed) believe that "death to the infidels in the west" is the only path forward for humanity. I don't think that anyone should conclude from that that this idea is not crazy.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
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.
Do you honestly believe the people driving these movements aren't familiar with their religion? Not every foot soldiers but the leadership and a large component of the fighters. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an islamic scholar. Al-Zawahiri was devout since he was a child.
You're basically ignoring what they themselves are stating in order to deflect the possibility that they are finding their path in their religious texts.
As for the bold. What? This is just patently dishonest. I'm sure you'll relink your picture of the terrorists deaths in Europe again implying that Basque terrorists, IRA etc were just as bad because many people were killed by them. Which totally ignores the disparity in comparable timespans (40+ years compared to like 20) and the radical advances in surveillance and technology. It also ignores that the majority of attacks come in the Muslim world itself.
Here are a few facts that studies have shown about Muslim terrorists:
...
- 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.
What studies?? I find this an incredible claim. Mormon terrorists? Buddhist terrorists? Sikh terrorism?
The more I read about this crap the less I identify as being a progressive. No wonder last few years I've felt like a man without a country... small L liberals are being replaced by progressives.
Considering how much you rant about "toxic discussion habits" it's really quite funny how terrible your own manners are.
Quote:
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.
This discussion has been had in the New American Politics thread, and I'm not really interested in going through it again. We're not going to suddenly agree on this.
Quote:
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.
First of all, a weak man fallacy. Taking the worst examples of certain behavior and taking them as representatives of the whole issue is poor argumentation.
Second, I did not make a generalized claim that any and all such comments in all contexts are okay. I simply said that no, I don't think Crumpy-Gunt in this thread is an actual problem.
Third, considering how worried you claim to be about "smears", maybe you should try doint it less yourself? You know, all those constant attempts at put downs. It's genuinely quite toxic.
Quote:
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:
The point of a discussion for you is the possibility of defeating someones position?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague
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.
I don't think you're crazy for thinking how you think. I even totally understand why people have such ideas. However, it does not follow that it's not all in your heads.
What I'm trying to do here is to get you to question your presumptions, because I think those presumptions are fundamentally wrong and the root of people's misconceptions.
Also, a lot of this is IMO just lack of perspective, historically, globally and socially. Certain loud and obnoxious liberals seem like the biggest deal ever if you're very close to it or keep paying attention to them, but if you take a step back you will notice that actually it's quite easy to mostly ignore them, and you will IMO inevitably notice that there is so much more going on.
Plus the height of the SJW crusades seems to be pretty much over already. A couple of years ago I might have agreed with you that they are a big problem, but there's really a lot less of it already.
And again, when I look around I see a huge amount of discussion and "politically incorrect" opinions. How many threads are there right now where people are saying that Islam in itself is a problem? How exactly has that debate been chilled at all by this supposed monster of "regressive left"?
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
You're basically ignoring what they themselves are stating in order to deflect the possibility that they are finding their path in their religious texts.
This is the crux of the whole thing. All that need be posted is ISIS's own propaganda. They spell it out perfectly clearly.
Spoiler!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISIS
Why We Hate You, and Why We Fight You
Shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite, Crusader nightclub by the mujahid Omar Mateen, American politicians were quick to jump into the spotlight and denounce the shooting, declaring it a hate crime, an act of terrorism, and an act of senseless violence. A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly hate liberalist sodomites, as does anyone else with any shred of their fitrah (inborn human nature) still intact. An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah. But an act of senseless violence?
One would think that the average Westerner, by now, would have abandoned the tired claim that the actions of the mujahidin – who have repeatedly stated their goals, intentions, and motivations – don’t make sense. Unless you truly – and naively – believe that the crimes of the West against Islam and the Muslims, whether insulting the Prophet, burning the Quran, or waging war against the Caliphate, won’t prompt brutal retaliation from the mujahidin, you know full well that the likes of the attacks carried out by Omar Mateen, Larossi Aballa, and many others before and after them in revenge for Islam and the Muslims make complete sense. The only thing senseless would be for there to be no violent, fierce retaliation in the first place!
Many Westerners, however, are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool. The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be “politically incorrect.” The apostate “imams” in the West will adhere to the same tired cliché in order to avoid a backlash from the disbelieving societies in which they’ve chosen to reside.
The point is, people know that it’s foolish, but they keep repeating it regardless because they’re afraid of the consequences of deviating from the script. There are exceptions among the disbelievers, no doubt, people who will unabashedly declare that jihad and the laws of the Shari’ah – as well as everything else deemed taboo by the Islam-is-a-peaceful-religion crowd – are in fact completely Islamic, but they tend to be people with far less credibility who are painted as a social fringe, so their voices are dismissed and a large segment of the ignorant masses continues believing the false narrative.
As such, it becomes important for us to clarify to the West in unequivocal terms – yet again – why we hate you and why we fight you.
1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you. “There has already been for you an excellent example in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people, ‘Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah alone’” (Al-Mumtahanah 4).
Furthermore, just as your disbelief is the primary reason we hate you, your disbelief is the primary reason we fight you, as we have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they submit to the authority of Islam, either by becoming Muslims, or by paying jizyah – for those afforded this option – and living in humiliation under the rule of the Muslims. Thus, even if you were to stop fighting us, your best-case scenario in a state of war would be that we would suspend our attacks against you – if we deemed it necessary – in order to focus on the closer and more immediate threats, before eventually resuming our campaigns against you. Apart from the option of a temporary truce, this is the only likely scenario that would bring you fleeting respite from our attacks. So in the end, you cannot bring an indefinite halt to our war against you. At most, you could only delay it temporarily. “And fight them until there is no fitnah [paganism] and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah” (Al-Baqarah 193).
2. We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted, a matter that doesn’t concern you because you separate between religion and state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power. In doing so, you desire to rob Allah of His right to be obeyed and you wish to usurp that right for yourselves. “Legislation is not but for Allah” (Yusuf 40).
Your secular liberalism has led you to tolerate and even support “gay rights,” to allow alcohol, drugs, fornication, gambling, and usury to become widespread, and to encourage the people to mock those who denounce these filthy sins and vices. As such, we wage war against you to stop you from spreading your disbelief and debauchery – your secularism and nationalism, your perverted liberal values, your Christianity and atheism – and all the depravity and corruption they entail. You’ve made it your mission to “liberate” Muslim societies; we’ve made it our mission to fight off your influence and protect mankind from your misguided concepts and your deviant way of life.
3. In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator. You witness the extraordinarily complex makeup of created beings, and the astonishing and inexplicably precise physical laws that govern the entire universe, but insist that they all came about through randomness and that one should be faulted, mocked, and ostracized for recognizing that the astonishing signs we witness day after day are the creation of the Wise, All-Knowing Creator and not the result of accidental occurrence. “Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?” (AtTur 35).
Your disbelief in your Creator further leads you to deny the Day of Judgment, claiming that “you only live once.” “Those who disbelieve have claimed that they will never be resurrected. Say, ‘Yes, by my Lord, you will surely be resurrected; then you will surely be informed of what you did. And that, for Allah, is easy’” (At-Taghabun 7).
4. We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion. As long as your subjects continue to mock our faith, insult the prophets of Allah – including Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad – burn the Quran, and openly vilify the laws of the Shari’ah, we will continue to retaliate, not with slogans and placards, but with bullets and knives.
5. We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bomb, kill, and maim our people around the world, and your puppets in the usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war against anyone who calls to the truth. As such, we fight you to stop you from killing our men, women, and children, to liberate those of them whom you imprison and torture, and to take revenge for the countless Muslims who’ve suffered as a result of your deeds.
6. We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out. As long as there is an inch of territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will continue to be a personal obligation on every single Muslim.
What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam.
Even if you were to pay jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.
What’s equally if not more important to understand is that we fight you, not simply to punish and deter you, but to bring you true freedom in this life and salvation in the Hereafter, freedom from being enslaved to your whims and desires as well as those of your clergy and legislatures, and salvation by worshiping your Creator alone and following His messenger. We fight you in order to bring you out from the darkness of disbelief and into the light of Islam, and to liberate you from the constraints of living for the sake of the worldly life alone so that you may enjoy both the blessings of the worldly life and the bliss of the Hereafter.
The gist of the matter is that there is indeed a rhyme to our terrorism, warfare, ruthlessness, and brutality. As much as some liberal journalist would like you to believe that we do what we do because we’re simply monsters with no logic behind our course of action, the fact is that we continue to wage – and escalate – a calculated war that the West thought it had ended several years ago. We continue dragging you further and further into a swamp you thought you’d already escaped only to realize that you’re stuck even deeper within its murky waters… And we do so while offering you a way out on our terms.
So you can continue to believe that those “despicable terrorists” hate you because of your lattes and your Timberlands, and continue spending ridiculous amounts of money to try to prevail in an unwinnable war, or you can accept reality and recognize that we will never stop hating you until you embrace Islam, and will never stop fighting you until you’re ready to leave the swamp of warfare and terrorism through the exits we provide, the very exits put forth by our Lord for the People of the Scripture: Islam, jizyah, or – as a last means of fleeting respite – a temporary truce.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
This is the crux of the whole thing. All that need be posted is ISIS's own propaganda. They spell it out perfectly clearly.
I'll ask this again: who on the left (or anywhere in serious western political discourse) is defending or tolerating the Islamic State? Who is defending or tolerating religious violence?
Answer: no one.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
^No one is "defending or tolerating" them. Some are suggesting that their behaviour is not truly religiously motivated, or that this is ancillary to the true reasons for what they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itse
This discussion has been had in the New American Politics thread, and I'm not really interested in going through it again. We're not going to suddenly agree on this.
I don't think we are, no. You obfuscate what seems perfectly obvious to me. If you hand me what clearly appears to me to be a cat, and tell me, "that's not a cat", there's nowhere for the conversation to go, really.
Quote:
First of all, a weak man fallacy. Taking the worst examples of certain behavior and taking them as representatives of the whole issue is poor argumentation.
Wait, what? He is a representative of the issue. I never said everyone is exactly like him. In fact, I said "varying degrees".
Quote:
Second, I did not make a generalized claim that any and all such comments in all contexts are okay. I simply said that no, I don't think Crumpy-Gunt in this thread is an actual problem.
That's a fair reply. To be clear, are you saying then that your comment to the effect that there's no problem because I'm here and can continue to speak, and people can read my words and judge for themselves, can't be extended beyond this specific context, and in others wouldn't hold true?
Quote:
Third, considering how worried you claim to be about "smears", maybe you should try doint it less yourself? You know, all those constant attempts at put downs. It's genuinely quite toxic.
Put downs or insults aren't "smears". The way you use language makes me wonder if you actually understand what my complaint is. It's not just being mean or snarky. It's dishonesty. A person can be downright nasty to other people without misrepresenting them. They're separate issues.
Quote:
The point of a discussion for you is the possibility of defeating someones position?
The point is to understand and amend those positions, not to defeat them. Convergence is the point, basically. Like I say, in the context of arguing whether a cat is a cat, there's not much discussion to be had.
Quote:
Plus the height of the SJW crusades seems to be pretty much over already. A couple of years ago I might have agreed with you that they are a big problem, but there's really a lot less of it already.
The past year has been the worst of it on this continent, actually, but I'm willing to be optimistic that it's on the decline. But that's largely because people did treat it like a big enough deal to get upset about it and say, "no, this is dumb".
Quote:
And again, when I look around I see a huge amount of discussion and "politically incorrect" opinions. How many threads are there right now where people are saying that Islam in itself is a problem? How exactly has that debate been chilled at all by this supposed monster of "regressive left"?
And you'll have people like Crumpy-Gunt, or rather less obvious or inflammatory versions of him, calling those people misogynist racist bigots in an attempt to shut them up. Some will ignore them or tell them to go #### themselves. Others will see this, determine that it's not worth dealing with that hassle and not wanting to have to explain to people that they're not racist, and will prefer to not say anything and remain quiet.
That's the chilling effect, to be clear. I'm explaining what we're talking about here, not trying to convince you of its existence as I don't think you're inclined to believe things that don't align with your world view, as you've just established by once again obfuscating the link between Islamic doctrine and jihadism and martyrdom as practiced by some Muslims.
EDIT: Ah, hell. I've dragged myself right into a discussion that's going exactly as badly as I expected. I'm done. PM me if you actually want to discuss this stuff and think there's a point to it, I kind of don't think anyone really does.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 08-20-2016 at 12:32 PM.
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.
Not when bigotry is assessed through victim impact. You can only defend yourself with reason when you're being judged with reason. The accusation itself is toxic.
There are a multitude of crimes I would hate to be accused of, even if I had not comitted them.
Not when bigotry is assessed through victim impact. You can only defend yourself with reason when you're being judged with reason. The accusation itself is toxic.
I don't know what to tell you. I don't feel like my boundaries of discourse or discussion are chilled or restrained currently. I fully expect to have to defend my views if challenged. If I'm able to then great. If I'm not able to, then back to the drawing board. I'm not embarassed or ashamed to admit that I've had to reassesss and chamge positions in the past that I came to understand were based on steroetypes or the attribution of arbitrary characteristics. Indeed, I'm proud of it.
For example, as part of my career, I regularly defend my employer against claims of discrimination, both in employment and in the provision of public services. Sometimes that requires me to take unsympathetic positions or make potentially ruthless or insensitive arguments. But I always satisfy myself that I can defend those arguments and positions in an evidence-based and logical, reasoned way. If I can't, I don't make those arguments.
I don't particularly care if people label me as a bigot if that accusation isn't reasonable or credible. C'est la vie.
Quote:
There are a multitude of crimes I would hate to be accused of, even if I had not comitted them.
Same with me but that doesn't mean I'm going to hide in my house. I say and do what I think is moral and legal (most of the time) and if'm accused of a crime I didn't commit, I will zealously defend myself. That's life in a modern democratic society.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
I think you're vastly overestimating both the number of people who espouse so-called regressive left beliefs as well as the influence of those people. In mainstream discourse all of those things you mention are held up to scrutiny to one degree or another.
Maybe because that's because I get most of my news from the CBC and the Globe and Mail. Though there is a timely column by Margaret Wente in the G&M today that moved past the popular narrative of schools not doing enough to encourage young women into STEM subjects to address the alarming decline in participation of young men in school and work.
It should be noted that Wente is one columnist at the G&M, a contrarian, and there are seven or eight other columnists or regular contributors who look at gender issues strictly through the lens of patriarchal oppression. It's also worth noting that she's a woman, and men who write columns such as that, or post them on social media platforms, are typically denounced as MRAs (a term I had to look up, but which stands for Male Rights Activist, apparently the lowest form of life in the social media ecology). And furthermore, if a male columnist at a mainstream newspaper published a column making such negative generalities about young women, it would provoke a firestorm of condemnation across the media.
__________________
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.
If you hand me what clearly appears to me to be a cat, and tell me, "that's not a cat", there's nowhere for the conversation to go, really.
Not at all true.
When I'm saying "thats not a cat because it has a forked tongue, it doesn't have fur, and it doesn't have legs", you could examine those arguments and either rebute them or accept that yup, probably not a cat.
Quote:
Put downs or insults aren't "smears". The way you use language makes me wonder if you actually understand what my complaint is. It's not just being mean or snarky. It's dishonesty. A person can be downright nasty to other people without misrepresenting them. They're separate issues.
Calling a person a bigot is not a misrepresentation if a person truly considers them a bigot.
Let me ask you this; if you truly considered that someone is a racist and a bigot and is constantly partaking in dishonest dog-whistle politics, would you then see it as acceptable to call a spade a spade?
I'm not saying that I don't think people are too quick to use those words. But I think you're exaggerating the amount of cases where this is not actually a somewhat valid criticism. It's not like the world is short on actual racism and sexism.
Also, trying to excuse your toxic behavior by saying "it's different" is a terrible argument.
Quote:
The point is to understand and amend those positions, not to defeat them. Convergence is the point, basically.
To me the point of discussion is to better understand the position of others, to expose your own views to criticism to make sure you can defend them (to yourself and to other), and to do the same to their views.
In short, discussion is about trying to understand why others disagree with you and making yourself less wrong in the process. If they end up agreeing with you, that's great but very rare.
Quote:
The past year has been the worst of it on this continent, actually, but I'm willing to be optimistic that it's on the decline.
Maybe you're right, although I don't agree. Unfortunately there is no way to measure it.
Quote:
But that's largely because people did treat it like a big enough deal to get upset about it and say, "no, this is dumb".
I agree. I actually started a thread about it just last year.
IMO there has been a really noticable change for the better since then.
However, one of the things I have been firmly against in this thread is the way people are wrapping all sorts of topics (liberals, the left, SJW crusades, terrorism, Islamism and Islam) into what I consider a complete mess of thinking.
Not everything in the world that people don't like is connected in a significant way.
Quote:
EDIT: Ah, hell. I've dragged myself right into a discussion that's going exactly as badly as I expected. I'm done. PM me if you actually want to discuss this stuff and think there's a point to it, I kind of don't think anyone really does.
I think it's been a rather good discussion actually. Just because we strongly disagree does not mean there was no point to it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
Put downs or insults aren't "smears". The way you use language makes me wonder if you actually understand what my complaint is. It's not just being mean or snarky. It's dishonesty. A person can be downright nasty to other people without misrepresenting them. They're separate issues.
Oh excellent, Mr. Pedantic. So your contributions to lowering the level of discourse are different than the people you're complaining about. Good lord, you're so insufferable.
Many look at Grumpy Gunt for going off the rails in this thread, but your need to police how people debate and speak in threads is the single worst detractor from good discussion on CP, it has been for a couple years now.
Sorry for the bluntness, but just had to get it out, as you had become a better, more community minded poster after you got called out awhile ago, but are now back to your original levels of thread dominance.
I only say this because you're an intelligent person with some great insight on a number of topics, but you have bias like every other human on eart, yet post like you don't.
Last edited by jayswin; 08-20-2016 at 01:57 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin 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 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.
It's kind of like talking about the US as if Sanders and Clinton and Obama and Trump all have the same problems (that are fundamentally related to them being Americans).
It's also important to remember that not all Islamists are violent. Some are pretty much the Muslim equivalent of GOP religious right. Not great for the society if you ask me, but a legitimate part of it, perfectly capable of respecting democractic processes, and certainly not terrorists, or even supporters of terrorism.
I think it's perfectly okay to bash Islamists in general though, and I do think they're in part to blame for extremist terrorism. I also think the doomsday preachers within GOP should take responsibility for some of the right wing terrorism in US.
Christianity is not the same as those others. Again, Christianity is not an ideology. It's a lot more complex thing, to the point where I don't really see much point in discussing "problems with Christianity". It's at best of historical interest at this point anyway, Christianity has become such a wide spread of ideologies and movements. Same with Islam.
Communism, fascism, corporate capitalism, those make much more sense as singular things to talk about.
A blanket condemnation is exactly the difference. The extreme right discusses the problematic parts of Islam with the purpose of dehumanizing and ostracizing all Muslims and creating the storyline of "clash of civilizations" that serves their political interests.
Wow - I missed some fun in this thread!
Anyway - thought I'd quote this particular post because it's brilliant.
Calling a person a bigot is not a misrepresentation if a person truly considers them a bigot.
Let me ask you this; if you truly considered that someone is a racist and a bigot and is constantly partaking in dishonest dog-whistle politics, would you then see it as acceptable to call a spade a spade?
Just to expand on this, I think a lot of people don't take enough responsibility for their words. Interpretation at best is 50% speaker, 50% listener. If you speak poorly or clumsy, you're likely to get a poor or clumsy interpretation, because you're giving more than 50% responsibility to the listener.
Corsi, you are a repeated advocate of speaking clearly and directly about "the issue," whatever issue it is, but there's not enough responsibility going around to the speaker to make sure he doesn't come off sounding like an idiot, or racist, or bigot.
We can complain to the end of the earth about how casually people accuse others of these things and misrepresent their point, but the speaker is not the victim here, it is their responsibility to make their point known properly. Own what you say, and own the amount you've left to interpretation. If you're called a racist and you don't think you are, don't get mad at the listener and whine about how they're smearing your name, consider WHY that interpretation is available and FIX it yourself. Blaming others is cowardly and lazy, and it's a huge problem in the moderate population.
"Oh, they're far right, or far left, so they just don't get it." No, you're a poor speaker. So you weren't able to communicate it. That might not mean your grammar is bad or you're dumb, but (as is OFTEN the case here, since everyone is a lawyer or an English professor or a philosopher) it means you failed to speak to your audience. That's one of the most crucial and basic parts to good writing and good speaking. Having a conversation with friends? Talk to them differently than you would a professor in the related field. Seems simple, but people seem far more interested in looking clever than being understood. Hard to feel sympathy.
It's a big reason I despise Sam Harris (bringing it all back to the start of the thread here). He's got some solid ideas, but he's such a poor writer and speaker that he spends way too much time going back and re-explaining himself. It's always "here's this idea" and then "no, why are you reacting like this? I meant this" and "no, I meant this, you still aren't getting it" etc.
Be better or quit complaining.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Yep, we have unlimited ability to post on this message board. Corsi uses this ability more than anyone on here, and others who feel misrepresented can do the same.
Someone calls your words bigoted, don't wait for Corsi to type out a four paragraph hand slap to the accuser, just clarify your position in another post. Bigotry and racism is quite easy to distance yourself from if you're not racist or bigoted and type your position out clearly.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
The more I read about this crap the less I identify as being a progressive. No wonder last few years I've felt like a man without a country... small L liberals are being replaced by progressives.
Frankly, considering that the Air India bombing is this country's worst ever incident of terrorism, your disbelief in the existence of Sikh terrorism is a bit troubling.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
^No one is "defending or tolerating" them. Some are suggesting that their behaviour is not truly religiously motivated, or that this is ancillary to the true reasons for what they do.
I don't think we are, no. You obfuscate what seems perfectly obvious to me. If you hand me what clearly appears to me to be a cat, and tell me, "that's not a cat", there's nowhere for the conversation to go, really.
Wait, what? He is a representative of the issue. I never said everyone is exactly like him. In fact, I said "varying degrees".
That's a fair reply. To be clear, are you saying then that your comment to the effect that there's no problem because I'm here and can continue to speak, and people can read my words and judge for themselves, can't be extended beyond this specific context, and in others wouldn't hold true?
Put downs or insults aren't "smears". The way you use language makes me wonder if you actually understand what my complaint is. It's not just being mean or snarky. It's dishonesty. A person can be downright nasty to other people without misrepresenting them. They're separate issues.
The point is to understand and amend those positions, not to defeat them. Convergence is the point, basically. Like I say, in the context of arguing whether a cat is a cat, there's not much discussion to be had.
The past year has been the worst of it on this continent, actually, but I'm willing to be optimistic that it's on the decline. But that's largely because people did treat it like a big enough deal to get upset about it and say, "no, this is dumb".
And you'll have people like Crumpy-Gunt, or rather less obvious or inflammatory versions of him, calling those people misogynist racist bigots in an attempt to shut them up. Some will ignore them or tell them to go #### themselves. Others will see this, determine that it's not worth dealing with that hassle and not wanting to have to explain to people that they're not racist, and will prefer to not say anything and remain quiet.
That's the chilling effect, to be clear. I'm explaining what we're talking about here, not trying to convince you of its existence as I don't think you're inclined to believe things that don't align with your world view, as you've just established by once again obfuscating the link between Islamic doctrine and jihadism and martyrdom as practiced by some Muslims.
EDIT: Ah, hell. I've dragged myself right into a discussion that's going exactly as badly as I expected. I'm done. PM me if you actually want to discuss this stuff and think there's a point to it, I kind of don't think anyone really does.
On top of being bigot you are a whiny cry baby. Taking aggressive ad-hominem jabs at people who dont agree with you and getting all emotional when people do the same to you. Refusing to indulge people without coming across as a self-absorbed know it all who puts effort into making his posts sound like those of a 19th century British scholar. You love to stereotype Muslims and lump all of Islam into the Islamist/extremist mold - completely wiping out secularists and moderates (the vast majority of Muslims) - however you cant take it when people stereotype you as a right wing European nationalist who probably owns some Nazi regalia.
"OMG this is so unfair, I refuse to seperate Islam from Islamism - and other posters are refusing to separate my right wing beliefs from neo-Nazism, what an injustice"
You cant go around playing the man instead of the ball and then expect nobody to come in and tackle you. If you want people to take you idiots seriously then stop painting nearly 2 billion people with the same brush and maybe people will have more time for you. The fact that this thread has in its title 'deal with Islam' and not 'deal with Islamism / Religious fundamentalism / political Islam.' is really telling. I truly dont believe you fools even want a discussion. You just want to come across as some enlightened brave saviors being crucified by the ignorant masses for your stupid beliefs.
Last edited by Crumpy-Gunt; 08-20-2016 at 02:55 PM.
