Explosion at Ariana Grande Concert in England

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Guys it's pretty obvious that if we want Muslims to stop supporting ISIS we should continue to demonize and vilify them as a group.

Can I say its great that anti-Muslim rhetoric has adopted Gays as their token group? Y'all are so inclusive.

No, vilifying and demonizing doesn't help. But neither does pretending things are different.

There is unfortunately many Muslim countries and therefore many Muslims with views that are very backwards and antithetical to the values we hold dear.

For the vast majority of Western Muslims, their worldview is similar to ours. That doesn't mean a large portion of Pakistanis don't want capital punishment for leaving Islam, because that's simply not true. We needn't ignore the bad to not demonize the good. I believe strongly we should accept more Syrian refugees. I don't think we need to stop accepting Pakistani immigrants either. But not keeping vigilant or pretending it's some tiny insignificant minority isn't helpful.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Can I say its great that anti-Muslim rhetoric has adopted Gays as their token group? Y'all are so inclusive.

Can I say how constantly disappointing it is that people who would otherwise claim to be feminists, gay rights activists and secularists don't seem to give two ####s about women, gays and atheists because of where they had the misfortune to be born and the source of their oppression?

Seriously, your drive by ####posting isn't just useless, it makes you sound like a callous a-hole. God forbid anyone point out that people are suffering thanks to religious nonsense somewhere other than in North America. I guess those people just don't really matter very much to you, except to the extent their deaths allow you to be sarcastic on the internet.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Can I say how constantly disappointing it is that people who would otherwise claim to be feminists, gay rights activists and secularists don't seem to give two ####s about women, gays and atheists because of where they had the misfortune to be born and the source of their oppression?

Seriously, your drive by ####posting isn't just useless, it makes you sound like a callous a-hole. God forbid anyone point out that people are suffering thanks to religious nonsense somewhere other than in North America. I guess those people just don't really matter very much to you, except to the extent their deaths allow you to be sarcastic on the internet.

Naw my dude, it's the complete opposite.

It's becoming an increasingly more common talking point from Anti-Muslim commentators to make an effort to point out that "HOMOSEXUALS" are also being killed in a pandering attempt to get fence-sitting liberals on board that "block the browns" brigade.

You can always tell it's a half-assed attempt at being a human being because they specifically use "HOMOSEXUALS" like a robot attempting human feelings, rather than gay or lesbian or LGBTQ or any of the common nomenclature. It's like when MRAs go out of their way to say "FEEEMALESSSS".

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

People you don't like are using the real, constant and ongoing suffering of marginalized groups you'd ordinarily be concerned about as a talking point, so your response is to trivialize that suffering. And you see nothing wrong here?

Who are these anti-muslim commentators you're referring to, anyway?

[CliffFletcher]

You can add the belief that all Muslims are the same to the list of things the dogmatic left and dogmatic right have in common. To bigots on the right, all Muslims represent a threat to the West. To the left, since bigots criticize Muslims - and they're obviously morons - there is no legitimate reason to express concerns about any Muslim groups or beliefs. Classic case of letting your hatred of the other side distort your own beliefs to the point where you become just as irrational and narrow-minded as they are.

[PsYcNeT]

Well, Cliff just did it on the last page as a "here" example.

I've seen it popping up more on Facebook and news comments lately as well, which usually means there's an effort from the places where these folks get their news to use that specific talking point with that specific wording.

It's a common theme in the current political climate. Your Hannitys or Joneses or whoever start repeating the same talking points and the same words, the internet masses begin to parrot consistently.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

There are two problems I see with what you just posted.

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Well, Cliff just did it on the last page as a "here" example.

Is Cliff an "anti-Muslim commentator?" Do you think he is just using gays as a prop for an anti-Muslim agenda, or do you think he actually cares about human suffering caused by dogmatists in the Muslim world? Because I asked for examples of the insincerity that you were alleging is becoming more common, and you led with him.

If you think Cliff is some sort of nefarious actor here rather than just someone you don't agree with a lot of the time, it's pretty obvious to me who the problem is.

I've seen it popping up more on Facebook and news comments lately as well, which usually means there's an effort from the places where these folks get their news to use that specific talking point with that specific wording.

So, people you don't know on the Internet then? Again, it doesn't matter who they are if they're right, but I thought you'd have examples of talking heads on CNN or something.

I asked because I have heard this being stressed by commentators for quite some time - Nawaz and Co. often talk about "the minorities within the minority" - but Alex Jones those guys and gals ain't, and casting aspersions on their intentions and motives would be a pretty big fail.

EDIT: I'd also add, even if you're right that this is gaining steam as a conservative talking point.. Why the hell are conservatives the ones talking about it? Why have they even been allowed to occupy that political ground? Why isn't it liberals crying out for gay rights and women's rights and minorities everywhere? The mere fact that you're complaining about this at all is fairly damning.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Well, Cliff just did it on the last page as a "here" example.

Where? You mean the part where I said most Muslims don't support terrorism, and that most of the victims of radical Islamic terrorism are other Muslims?

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I've seen it popping up more on Facebook and news comments lately as well, which usually means there's an effort from the places where these folks get their news to use that specific talking point with that specific wording.

It's a common theme in the current political climate. Your Hannitys or Joneses or whoever start repeating the same talking points and the same words, the internet masses begin to parrot consistently.

I'm not on Facebook. I don't know who Hannity and Jones are. Here's where I get my news and global affairs analysis from:

The Globe and Mail
The National Post
CBC radio
The Guardian
The Spectator
The Economist
The New Yorker
The Atlantic

You seem so immersed in social media and so fixated on social media tribes and memes that you're incapable of engaging in any kind of discussion without immediately putting people into boxes that conform to those tribes and memes. It's a pretty juvenile way to treat important issues.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm not on Facebook. I don't know who Hannity and Jones are.

[CliffFletcher]

I assume they're American TV personalities? I don't watch TV news, or follow American political media coverage closely, beyond what I gather from the Atlantic and the New Yorker.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

If you think Cliff is some sort of nefarious actor here rather than just someone you don't agree with a lot of the time, it's pretty obvious to me who the problem is.

No, but like a significant portion of the self-proclaimed Moderate population, he increasingly leans right on Islam.

So, people you don't know on the Internet then? Again, it doesn't matter who they are if they're right, but I thought you'd have examples of talking heads on CNN or something.

I asked because I have heard this being stressed by commentators for quite some time - Nawaz and Co. often talk about "the minorities within the minority" - but Alex Jones those guys and gals ain't, and casting aspersions on their intentions and motives would be a pretty big fail.

The internet is an excellent sample of the world at large and to think otherwise is naive. I don't watch TV news but you can always see a "trending" theme being pushed as narrative begin to grow in comment sections. People pick up on a chain they find attractive and repeat it to sound smart or push an agenda.

EDIT: I'd also add, even if you're right that this is gaining steam as a conservative talking point.. Why the hell are conservatives the ones talking about it? Why have they even been allowed to occupy that political ground? Why isn't it liberals crying out for gay rights and women's rights and minorities everywhere? The mere fact that you're complaining about this at all is fairly damning.

Here's a fun thought, most are crying out against it, but because we aren't choosing to vilify an entire religion in the process we're condoning it apparently.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Where? You mean the part where I said most Muslims don't support terrorism, and that most of the victims of radical Islamic terrorism are other Muslims?

Where you used the term "homosexuals" obviously.

I'm not on Facebook. I don't know who Hannity and Jones are. Here's where I get my news and global affairs analysis from:

The Globe and Mail
The National Post
CBC radio
The Guardian
The Spectator
The Economist
The New Yorker
The Atlantic

You seem so immersed in social media and so fixated on social media tribes and memes that you're incapable of engaging in any kind of discussion without immediately putting people into boxes that conform to those tribes and memes. It's a pretty juvenile way to treat important issues.

"You use peoples inflections in text/speech to interpret their intentions and subtext, how juvenile!" *sips hardy glass of Port*

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I assume they're American TV personalities? I don't watch TV news, or follow American political media coverage closely, beyond what I gather from the Atlantic and the New Yorker.

You've seriously never heard of Sean Hannity or Alex Jones? I honestly do not know how you could follow American political news at all and miss them, even in the Guardian (which by the way, one of these things is not like the others) or the Atlantic. I've never watched a minute of either one of their programs, yet I'm pretty well acquainted with who they are as commentators, at least from the perspective of selective editing on other shows. It would be like saying you don't know who Stephen Colbert or Bill Maher are.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Where you used the term "homosexuals" obviously.

...and? That's the term that was used in the Guardian article I read on the situation in Indonesia.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

No, but like a significant portion of the self-proclaimed Moderate population, he increasingly leans right on Islam.

"Leans right" meaning that he attributes the behaviour of Muslim extremists in some measure to their religious beliefs? That's not a political position, it's just common sense. People are being burned to death in cages, but you seem far more concerned with the political ideology of the people who've actually noticed.

The internet is an excellent sample of the world at large and to think otherwise is naive. I don't watch TV news but you can always see a "trending" theme being pushed as narrative begin to grow in comment sections. People pick up on a chain they find attractive and repeat it to sound smart or push an agenda.

I note in the other thread that Cali Panthers Fan has made similar noises. Street Pharmacist has too. Acolytes of Alex Jones both, no doubt? You're pretty quick to dismiss peoples' views as the product of far right propaganda based on a few internet posts.

Here's a fun thought, most are crying out against it, but because we aren't choosing to vilify an entire religion in the process we're condoning it apparently.

Pointing out that a large segment of a religion are oppressing smaller segments is the exact opposite of "vilifying an entire religion". If a poll shows that 89% of Pakistani Muslims support stoning Muslim women for adultery, pointing that out is not "painting all Muslims with the same brush", it's painting 89% of one population with that brush based on empirical evidence. You know, "rational thought".

Where you used the term "homosexuals" obviously.

Ah, I didn't realize the problem - Cliff, work on your pronunciation. It's "Shibboleth".

"You use peoples inflections in text/speech to interpret their intentions and subtext, how juvenile!" *sips hardy glass of Port*

Port is awesome. You're missing out.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

No, but like a significant portion of the self-proclaimed Moderate population, he increasingly leans right on Islam.

Interesting how criticism of one Abrahamic religion plants you firmly in the left, but criticism of another makes you right leaning.

Apparently we must criticize them all equally, at all times, regardless of current events. Also whenever one is the underlying cause of a tragic event, we must continue to re-affirm that they're all just exactly as bad as each other. Just in case anyone forgot or, god forbid, thinks you're singling one out.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

That's really messed up. What kind of churches are these?

Small non-denominational evangelical churches mostly, I don't think I was ever a member of a church where the congregation was more than 150 people. Many were into the prosperity gospel that were closely tied to people like Kenneth Copeland, Kenneth Hagin and their like.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

And yeah, Photon, in Canada those churches? I could see it in the southern USA, but really?

I've only ever lived in Alberta and Saskatchewan, so yeah Canada. They're out there, I don't think I just happened to go to the only ones with these views. They're probably harder to find nowadays as you suggest but people I used to interact with I still see on Facebook and their feeds still are full of anti "homosexual agenda" rhetoric and how God's going to punish Canada because we're more accepting of "teh gays".

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

And I've never heard a word of anti-semitism interacting semi-regularly with devout protestants around my age; quite the opposite, as they all seem to be intractably pro-Israel.

Yeah it was a weird thing, they were pro-Israel the nation, but there was always an anti-Jewish vibe, that God had turned his back on them and that it was important for them to reject their Judaism. I remember having many special speakers come in that were highly celebrated because they were converted Jews.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm certainly not here to pick a fight with you Photon, but I'm curious about the churches that you attended.

Small non-denomination evangelical churches across Alberta and Saskatchewan, but they were real churches that met in real buildings, not some kind of weird underground thing.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I guess the message is that there are good churches and bad churches, there are good mosques and bad mosques, there are good religious leaders, and there are bad religious leaders.

There's good and bad, but I think it's even more complicated than that.. I think the vast majority are "good" in that they honestly believe deep in their hearts they are good. But many bad things are done in the name of good when the good is a "higher" good. And even ones that have some bad are mostly good. It's hard (for me anyway) to say a church is bad when it does a ton of work in the community improving people's lives, feeding the poor, helping sick people, etc, and then just happen to publicly shame members who have a baby out of wedlock or preach against the gay agenda. It's complicated.

None of the churches I went to ever overtly advocated for violence. They were always taking refuge in "love the sinner, hate the sin". But there was always the militant imagery of fighting against the satanist homosexual agenda, the righteous protection of children against the threat of having them around "those people" (because the incidents of pedophilia was proven to be much higher), the spiritual warfare of struggling against principalities and powers that drove the acceptance of perversion.

Fear and hate covered by a thin veneer of love the sinner hate the sin.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by photon

I've only ever lived in Alberta and Saskatchewan, so yeah Canada. They're out there, I don't think I just happened to go to the only ones with these views. They're probably harder to find nowadays as you suggest but people I used to interact with I still see on Facebook and their feeds still are full of anti "homosexual agenda" rhetoric and how God's going to punish Canada because we're more accepting of "teh gays".

What is the "Homosexual Agenda?"

I'd wager that its probably far less nefarious than these people tend to believe.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Locke

What is the "Homosexual Agenda?"

I'd wager that its probably far less nefarious than these people tend to believe.

To turn us all into better dressers.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by photon

Fear and hate covered by a thin veneer of love the sinner hate the sin.

No doubt. Still, it's preferable to "hate the sin, flog or stone the sinner to death."

14 per cent of Canadians today believe society should not accept homosexuality. In most Muslim-majority countries, that number is over 90 per cent. It takes a special kind of equivocation to brush off the difference between the two.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/...homosexuality/

[photon]

Originally Posted by Locke

What is the "Homosexual Agenda?"

I'd wager that its probably far less nefarious than these people tend to believe.

Both believe the agenda is acceptance, the problem is one sees this as a basic human right, the other sees this as the same thing that lead to God flooding the earth.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

No doubt. Still, it's preferable to "hate the sin, flog or stone the sinner to death."

14 per cent of Canadians today believe society should not accept homosexuality. In most Muslim-majority countries, that number is over 90 per cent. It takes a special kind of equivocation to brush off the difference between the two.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/...homosexuality/

I don't believe religion is the only difference between the societies so I can't deduce that some intrinsic quality of Islam is the root cause of the differences of outcomes.

That Christianity has had its violent and reprehensible eras when viewed with modern viewpoints suggests to me that there's more to it than the name applied to the religion.

If I magically transplanted you or I into those countries and we lived the same lives, we'd hold the same views and would have the same chance of falling to extremism.

And if the base religion was swapped out but the rest of the socioeconimic and geopolitical factors remained the same, I'm not convinced that the outcomes would be different. It's difficult (impossible?) to compare Islam and Christianity in the apples to apples comparison necessary to call one vastly more evil than another IMO.